BL> I changed it to boblaw because Ubobl is not satisfactory.
BL> "You-bobble" is a dick of a name! My SPCUG Internet address is
BL> boblawrence{at}sydpcug.org.au and boblaw is a 6-char version of that. If
BL> you want a meaningless name in the tradition of the Internet, similar
BL> to your scorpio and Jeff's grntrs (or whatever it was) then I would
BL> prefer nonsens.

BL> Is my Internet address... boblaw{at}scorpio.rosebay.matra.com.au ? 

To tell you the truth, I don't know, but I can probably find out when I get
some mail from you.  Of course it will be a fake-internet address.

BL> You sent me all sorts of shit and the two little files in my spool 
BL> file were uploaded to you. I got Jeff's tml stuff too. This looks like 
BL> it might work! A small catch was that it sent my own replies too...

What do you mean "your own replies"?  Are you talking about
messages that were posted here and that Jeff gated into the UUCP side?  If
so, then that is what I would expect.  If you don't want dupes, you simply
stop calling BOTH fido + UUCP, choose UUCP only.

BL> But there is a problem for me...

BL> You sent those cunbatch files as gd0005.d and my compress program
BL> expects a .*z extension. My DOS version of compress skips the cunbatch
BL> lines which makes it a lot faster to process, and if you send .d 
BL> extensions I'll have to rename them to .z files before I process... or
BL> rewrite compress.

Um.

BL> Each of the .d files has a .x equivalent. What does this mean? Does
BL> the x-file identify the d-file, and can I rely on the .x extension on
BL> the X File? I know the truth is out there somewhere...

Um.

BL> Or to put it another way... why the FUCK don't you use .z!

Um.  I would have expected it to be the same as that rosebay stuff, isn't it?

BL> How do I identify actual mail? The mad "#! cunbatch" line is not on
BL> all mail... 

I think it should be, on all news.

BL> or are those plain-text "Fred" messages your own creation?

I don't think you should judge my system from the first connect.  I had
millions of problems when setting the system up, and I have no idea what
happened.  If you get any more "fred" messages, let me know, as
my system is notionally "sorted out" now.

BL> Can I rely on the .d extension? Can I rely on the #! cunbatch line?

Dunno + dunno.  I would expect everything from now on to be consistent,
because I am ONLY sending newsgroups at the moment, there is no email
capability (not that I've set up, anyway!).

BL> Has the whole world gone mad?

That's the latest rumour I heard.

BL> How would you like my replies sent? Do you have any particular
BL> letter in mind as an extension or would you prefer me to change them
BL> daily? 

Um.  Whatever's "standard".

BL> Would you mind if I changed the first line to "#! cunthook"?

Yes.  Doesn't your software do all this stuff automatically?

BL> The mail transfer seems to work okay but it's bloody slow with so
BL> many separate small files each from a different person. Doesn't UUCP
BL> have a packet standard so you can send them all at once?

Yes, that's what the #!rnews header should be on the files you decompress.
Check the stuff that Jeff sent, that was all processed in one hit so you
should have heaps of data in one file.  I believe a new file is created for
every time I run "send-uucp".  In the testing stages I do that a
fair bit!

BL> We're getting there... now you need an Areafix so I can leave all
BL> that C-programming crap and get a bit more AVT. This seems to be 
BL> incredibly easy at this end...

The C programming stuff should no longer be coming to you, since I am no
longer "sucking" it from the internet.  My intention was to feed
internet newsgroups to you all, but I think in the initial couple of weeks
I'd like to stick to dial.tml.locsysop, dial.tml.locuser, and thanks to
Jeff, you've even got a dial.avtech!

BL> I've started writing my mail processor... what language would annoy 
BL> you more, VB or Pascal?

I suppose I should say "Pascal", in the hope that that will make
you write some ISO Pascal code, that at least has a ghost of a chance of
being compiled on Linux.

BL> ... later...

BL> I'm confused by the various types of file in your download.

BL> The 0001 message is in plain text (Fred) and the X-file shows:
BL> U news scorpio
BL> C rnews Ubobl Ubobl.uucp

Let's forget this one until it happens again.

BL> The 0005 message is compressed international packet and #1 cunbatch;
BL> U news scorpio
BL> C rnews

The "U news" above, and the "U root" below, are
obviously because they were the userids I was using when I ran the commands
to batch the mail.  I have a userid called "news" and one called
"root".

BL> The 000c message is compressed local locuser and locsysop and shows:
BL> U root scorpio
BL> C rnews

That probably means "C" for "compress format" and
"rnews" meaning rnew-batch, ie it starts with #!cunbatch.

BL> I am in full agreement with U root scorpio, but is there any way I
BL> can tell if the packet is compressed ahead of time, or do I have to
BL> open every file, and let compress fail?

I think all mail from my system will be compressed the same way from now
on. I don't actually know how to make things "different" at this
stage.  Any different formats you have obtained so far are probably due to
me being in different stages of configuration.

BL> THESE SMARTARSE UNIX-WANKERS GIVE ME THE SHITS!!!!!!

Boy oh boy this stuff has been complex to set up.

BL> First, they put a #1 cunthook header their compress doesn't handle,

Doesn't fxuucico do that by any chance?

BL> they have no way to tell if the file is compressed *inside* the file
BL> (PKZIP uses "PK" as the first two characters), and then they use

Are you sure there's no identifier, e.g. 0x01 or something?

BL> nonstandard file suffixes! Does it mean that I have to try *every*
BL> file? 

Actually, it sends long filenames doesn't it?  You know, I might be sending
you .z's, and fxcico might be translating them.

Did you ever stop to think that it might be ALL YOUR FAULT and my system is
PERFECTLY SET UP?  Don't worry, I didn't either!  BTW, I think I'll start
posting messages in dial.* instead of here from now on, to test out the
technology.  Maybe what I'll do is reply to any messages posted via this
route, here, and any posted via UUCP, via UUCP, and any new ones, I'll use
UUCP, to encourage migration.  Jeff is providing a fallback here so that
any messages will get to you via here even if your UUCP connection failed
to get the mail.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---