Jack Stein wrote in a message to Bill Shaughnessy:
JS> Bill Shaughnessy wrote in a message to Bruce Foreman:
 BS>         If we were trying to solve a normal connectivity
 BS> problem, the hardware would be a good place to start.  But
 BS> we don't have a normal problem, and in fact we may not even
 BS> have a problem at all.  So what if there are several
 BS> versions of OPUS 1.73a running around.  If this has not
 BS> bothered you by now, chances are very good that it won't
 BS> bother you in the future.
JS> Bill, rather than fuss around about different versions of
JS> OPUS floating around, why not do a CRC check with Stu's and
JS> Willies and see if they are the same.  I think you will find
JS> they are exactly the same, but, if Stu's is different, and
JS> allows non-complient netmail, some of us might want to give
JS> it a shot.   
Jack:
     The original question was whether or not there might be several versions 
of OPUS floating around.  I responded affirmatively, because I've suspected 
that for a long time.  As far as running CRC's, I don't know that it really 
would tell us anything.  As you know, our Net is the one with the most OPUS 
systems still operable.  As near as I can tell, about half of these systems 
are running barefoot, and the remainder are running with BinkleyTerm.  As far 
as mailers are concerned, these are the backbone of FTS-0001.  If you haven't 
had any problems to date, you don't have one today.
     Back in the days when I was running OPUS, I did have some problems, and 
I did manage to correct them.  My investigations at that time did strongly 
indicate a problem in OPUS, and I reported that problem in this very echo. 
Considering the speed with which OPUS is proceeding with its upgrade, I 
sincerely doubt that this problem will ever arise again.
JS> Personally, I don't want any non-complient mailers
JS> connecting to me, just on general principle, others may want
JS> to rush out and get Stu's "version" of OPUS, who knows.  My
JS> money is on all OPUS versions being identical between you,
JS> Stu and Willie (and myself).  Should take about 10 minutes
JS> to check all 3 out, right?
     I've been intimately involved with a non-compliant mailer for over a 
year now, specifically PCBoard's vers 15.21 and 15.22.   At the present time, 
the non-compliancy has been corrected by the PCBoard developer, Clark 
Development Co.  I personally conducted "final" tests, nationwide, on the new 
mailer, and although there are a few questions, the new mailer passed with 
flying colors. The new PCBoard mailer, which will be formally released within 
the next few days, will not have the incompatibility problems with OPUS that 
its predecessors had.
     On this basis, Jack, while I'm willing to make the necessary CRC checks 
for you, they really won't tell you anything.  When I checked for OPUS/PCB 
compliancy last December, there were only 2 barefoot systems that would 
exchange mail with me - Stu's (there was a long testing period) and one 
other, Joe Fossati's as I remember.  I sent my notes to CDC, and they may 
possibly be in a batch of documents they lost.
     Although the PCB problem is now corrected, there is still the problem of 
a number of other mailers which *are not* FidoNet compliant. My best guess is 
that the "fidogawds" are ready to really clamp down. I'm advising sysops 
these days to switch to BinkleyTerm as a safety measure.
     If you still want to see some CRC's, I'll be glad to run them, but for 
NET 129 (our Net) only.  There have been a few messages posted recently 
touting the capabilities of the LOYAL OPUS sysops.  I think that the MEADOW 
echo can handle the needs outside of Net 129.  I'll even go so far as to run 
some CRC's for Willie, even though he is on his way to becoming a traitor to 
OPUS by switching to BinklerTerm.  We can discuss this more in our local echo 
if you desire.
                   Bill
--- timEd 1.01
---------------