mwm@eris.UUCP (02/14/87)
In article <5663@amdahl.UUCP> kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >Most recently, Mike Meyer sent something to Purdue for moderated posting >(as a test case I think). This was 10 days ago ... has it shown up >anyplace (besides Purdue, that is?) No, it was to demonstrate faith in moderated news groups. I sent it twice (after getting a message about having sent an empty file). I haven't seen anything, and will be posting it here (comp.sys.amiga) shortly. So much for faith. I suspect that the problem is that ulowell does _not_ have a reliable connection to the outside world. I just changed all the ulowell.csnet entries in info-68k to !ulowell! because UUCP is more reliable than their CSNET connection. Gag. Of course there are several requirements for a moderated group to work; any of them could be failing in this case. While I'm on the subject, Barry Shein has suggested a new moderated group for the "My Computer Is Better Than Your Computer" Wars - including an archive, so that people interested in buying such things could get them. I (having far more free time than I know what to do with [Tongue firmly in cheek; actually, it's somewhere in the next room....]. Yes Erik, I know that bdbm is next on the list.....) have volunteered to moderate it if he'll do the net.politics to set it up. Watch for it, coming to a usenet node near you: talk.religion.micros :-)! <mike But I'll survive, no you won't catch me, Mike Meyer I'll resist the urge that is tempting me, ucbvax!mwm I'll avert my eyes, keep you off my knee, mwm@berkeley.edu But it feels so good when you talk to me. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <2532@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (No one lives forever.) Meyer) writes: >In article <5663@amdahl.UUCP> kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >>Most recently, Mike Meyer sent something to Purdue for moderated posting >>(as a test case I think). This was 10 days ago ... has it shown up >>anyplace (besides Purdue, that is?) > >I suspect that the problem is that ulowell does _not_ have a reliable >connection to the outside world. I just changed all the ulowell.csnet >entries in info-68k to !ulowell! because UUCP is more reliable than >their CSNET connection. Gag. Of course there are several requirements >for a moderated group to work; any of them could be failing in this >case. Serious Confusion Here: mod.amiga.sources has naught to do with ulowell, submissions should go to purdue. This may or may not explain why your posting didn't show up in mod.amiga.sources... Recently I asked Doc what was up, and he indicated that several Indiana sites were getting postings ok... I sent him a list of all that had appeared at this end (nothing for months), but received no comment on this point... So what's the scoop? Has anything been sent out this year? Has anybody received anything this year? -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
page@ulowell.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <5663@amdahl.UUCP> kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >Most recently, Mike Meyer sent something to Purdue for moderated posting Then mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (No one lives forever.) Meyer) wrote: >I suspect that the problem is that ulowell does _not_ have a reliable >connection to the outside world. How did we start talking about ulowell? Didn't you mail it to purdue? Heat on. This is for Mike but everyone needs to know the facts. For the record, ulowell _does_ have a reliable connection to the outside world. Several of them, thank you. Maybe purdue doesn't ? >I just changed all the ulowell.csnet entries in info-68k to !ulowell! That's your decision. >because UUCP is more reliable than their CSNET connection. Gag. CSNET works, it's just been slower in some cases over the past two months, and should be faster in most cases now. We never had any _reliability_ problems, however. Use whatever path you want. ulowell.edu is preferred - why are you specifying routing? Heat off. How's your Amiga? How about that new Amiga 2000! ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. ulowell!page, page@ulowell.CSNET
phils@tekigm2.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <1065@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >In article <5663@amdahl.UUCP> kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >>Most recently, Mike Meyer sent something to Purdue for moderated posting > >Then mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (No one lives forever.) Meyer) wrote: >>I suspect that the problem is that ulowell does _not_ have a reliable >>connection to the outside world. > >How did we start talking about ulowell? Didn't you mail it to purdue? > >Heat on. This is for Mike but everyone needs to know the facts. > >For the record, ulowell _does_ have a reliable connection to the >outside world. Several of them, thank you. Maybe purdue doesn't ? > ... > >..Bob >-- >Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. ulowell!page, page@ulowell.CSNET Today I received some return mail indicating that a reply I had send to ulowell had not been delivered in 5 days. Does this maybe indicate that ulowell's connection to the outside world is somewhat less reliable than Bob believes? Particularly in light of the statement Bob makes later in this article that ulowell.edu is the preferred path. (No flames here, just wanting to point out a (perhaps non-unique) problem) This is the returned text: Begin quote mode: (Message inbox:100) Received: from tektronix.tek.com (tektronix.TEK) by tekigm2.TEK.COM (1.2/6.19) id AA19539; Tue, 17 Feb 87 06:44:47 PST Message-Id: <8702171444.AA19539@tekigm2.TEK.COM> Received: from csnet-relay by tektronix.tektronix.TEK.COM id a012574; 17 Feb 87 6:44 PST Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 6:49:45 EST From: RELAY Mail System (MMDF) <mmdf@relay.cs.net> Sender: mmdf@relay.cs.net Subject: Waiting mail (msg.as19183) To: phils@tekigm2.TEK.COM After 5 days (110 hours), your message has not yet been fully delivered. Attempts to deliver the message will continue for 2 more days. No further action is required by you. Delivery attempts are still pending for the following address(es): mod-amiga@ulowell.edu (host: ulowell.edu) (queue: ulowell) Problems usually are due to service interruptions at the receiving machine. Less often, they are caused by the communication system. Your message begins as follows: Received: from tektronix.tek.com by RELAY.CS.NET id as19183; 12 Feb 87 15:45 EST Received: by tektronix.TEK.COM (5.31/6.19) id AA26080; Thu, 12 Feb 87 11:13:44 PST Received: by tekigm2.TEK.COM (1.2/6.19) id AA19362; Thu, 12 Feb 87 11:09:29 PST From: Philip E Staub <phils@tekigm2.tek.com> Message-Id: <8702121909.AA19362@tekigm2.TEK.COM> Date: 12 Feb 87 19:09:27 GMT To: mod-amiga@tektronix.TEK.COM Subject: Submission for mod-amiga Responding-System: tekigm2.TEK.COM Path: tekigm2!phils From: phils@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) ... End quote mode. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Staub tektronix!tekigm!phils (206) 253-5634 Tektronix, Inc., ISI Engineering P.O.Box 3500, M/S C1-904, Vancouver, Washington 98668 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Staub tektronix!tekigm!phils (206) 253-5634 Tektronix, Inc., ISI Engineering P.O.Box 3500, M/S C1-904, Vancouver, Washington 98668