Paul, at 00:16 on Apr 28 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> After trying it for the first time a few moments ago, it would seem that 
BG> the short answer is NO.  As you can clearly see, I use a ModemTrans 

PE> I see in the logs you connected to me fine.

Of course I did Paul, but only AFTER physically altering my dialling string
to ATX1DT.  And what's even more bloody annoying is that yours is one of
the few interstate exchanges where the STD pips are misinterpreted as BUSY.

BG> Is there anything like an "Afterdial" comment (or similar)
which will allow 
BG> me to add two commas after the phone number?  For example, ATDT024361785,, 
BG> - which would also solve the problem?

PE> 1. I don't know, I haven't done any work in that area.

Your product knowledge astounds me sometimes.

PE> 2. The behaviour should therefor be the same as Binkley 2.60

Agreed, but for some obscure reason, it appears that it's not.

PE> 3. I just looked at the doco for Binkley 2.60, and them said something
PE> about needing to change your modemtrans, but I didn't understand it

I don't have the docs for 2.60.  Can you do a cut-and-paste of that
specifically relevant section for me please?

PE> 4. Looking at the code, it seems a "/" separates a prefix
and suffix.

How do you mean?  You've lost me Paul.

PE> 5. Can you get Binkley 2.60 from David Drummond and tell me if that has
PE> the same behaviour.

I think I'd be more inclined to try the altered syntax, whatever it is.

PE> 6. Can you read the Binkley 2.60 doco and tell me if you understand it.

As I said, I don't have the 2.60 docs.

PE> 7. Can't you make that your dialling prefix on all calls anyway?

No, because that would then disable BUSY detect on ALL outbound calls, both
local and STD, instead of just those calls to your board.

BG> Finally, are there any other nasties lurking in my binkley.cfg below, which 
BG> is likely to bite me on the arse if I use it exactly as it stands?

PE> Basically if it works for 2.59, it should work for 2.60, unless they
PE> have changed something in 2.60.  And I don't actually know if they
PE> have, because I haven't read the doco, I just modified the bits that
PE> I used.

Well, a string search on the 2.60 executable shows that ModemTrans should
be accepted, so the problem is likely due to a change in syntax.  I'll
await your c&p of the modemtrans docs, and take it from there.

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 3.20