frr@altger.UUCP (Francesco Rossi) (03/06/88)
I am using an IBM XT (8086) with Xenix ver 2.1.0 I ve got problems with the uucico program and the general xenix - unix mail WHen I try to call a system with uucico it gives me stranges errors with the Debug #9 likes : bad header 177655,h-ccntl 177611 rec h->cntl 45 when it gets these errors it doesn't reply nothing and it waits for the next error after 10 tries I think there is a timeout and it drops the carrier Can someone help me ? Regards... Francesco
frr@altger.UUCP (Francesco Rossi) (03/11/88)
Hiya world I ve got problems with the Unix to Unix Copy In Copy Out program I am running with SCO Xenix 2.1.0 under an XT machine using a NEC V20 My problem is that I can't call out with uucico when I call it doesn't accept any connection, it runs only with a Xenix 2.3.0 running on a 286 10Mhz system. the error messages follows: bad header 177655,h->ccntl 177611 rec h->cntl 45 this error for 10 times after this, the timeout and it drops the carrier.. have you any suggestion ? Thanks Francesco Newsgroups: comp.sys.unix,comp.unix.xenix,comp.mail.uucp,muc.xenix Subject: UUCP problems Expires: References: Sender: Reply-To: frr@altger.UUCP (Francesco Rossi) Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Altos Computer Systems Munich Keywords: Hiya world I ve got problems with the Unix to Unix Copy In Copy Out program I am running with SCO Xenix 2.1.0 under an XT machine using a NEC V20 My problem is that I can't call out with uucico when I call it doesn't accept any connection, it runs only with a Xenix 2.3.0 running on a 286 10Mhz system. the error messages follows: bad header 177655,h->ccntl 177611 rec h->cntl 45 this error for 10 times after this, the timeout and it drops the carrier.. have you any suggestion ? Thanks Francesco
abcscnge@csuna.UUCP (Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl) (03/25/88)
When attempting to run UUCP from a IBM XENIX 1.0 system to an SCO XENIX V 2.2.1 system, the IBM system calls up and logs in, and the SCO system responds with Shere and then times out the IBM system. I also can't seem to get 2 IBM 1.0 systems to talk via UUCP. Any suggestions? -- Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl UUCP: ...!ihnp4!csun!csuna!abcscnge -- "They also surf who stand on waves" -- Disclaimers? We don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/28/88)
In article <1113@csuna.UUCP> abcscnge@csuna.UUCP (Scott "The Pseudo Hacker" Neugroschl) writes: | When attempting to run UUCP from a IBM XENIX 1.0 system to an SCO | XENIX V 2.2.1 system, the IBM system calls up and logs in, and the | SCO system responds with | | Shere | | and then times out the IBM system. I also can't seem to get 2 IBM 1.0 systems | to talk via UUCP. Any suggestions? Having spent several weeks finding a similar problem, I would suspect parity is the problem. Particularly if the call working in one direction and not the other. If that's the case let me know, I think I have the solution to the problem. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
mike@ists (Mike Clarkson) (03/29/88)
In article <10126@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: | In article <1113@csuna.UUCP| abcscnge@csuna.UUCP (Scott "The Pseudo Hacker" Neugroschl) writes: | | When attempting to run UUCP from a IBM XENIX 1.0 system to an SCO | | XENIX V 2.2.1 system, the IBM system calls up and logs in, and the | | SCO system responds with | | | | Shere | | | | and then times out the IBM system. I also can't seem to get 2 IBM 1.0 systems | | to talk via UUCP. Any suggestions? | | Having spent several weeks finding a similar problem, I would suspect | parity is the problem. Particularly if the call working in one direction | and not the other. If that's the case let me know, I think I have the | solution to the problem. Very likely. SCO defaults its port to no parity, while most other Unixes default to even parity. You have 2 choices; either change the parity for your port to even using /etc/gettydefs, or at the IBM end, try adding "" P_ZERO at the beginning of the chat script, after the phone number. This (may) tell the IBM uucico to start up using parity = none. -- Mike Clarkson mike@ists.UUCP Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science York University, North York, Ontario, CANADA M3J 1P3 (416) 736-5611
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (03/31/88)
In article <1113@csuna.UUCP>, abcscnge@csuna.UUCP (Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl) writes: > When attempting to run UUCP from a IBM XENIX 1.0 system to an SCO XENIX V 2.2.1 > system, the IBM system calls up and logs in, and the SCO system responds with > > Shere > > and then times out the IBM system. I also can't seem to get 2 IBM 1.0 systems > to talk via UUCP. Any suggestions? Sure ... install a large eyebolt in the top of each IBM system, fill each with concrete, and put the IBM systems into use as boat anchors. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the open invitation -- but I did keep my suggestion CLEAN!!!) Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/31/88)
In article <175@ists> mike@ists (Mike Clarkson) writes: > >Very likely. SCO defaults its port to no parity, while most other >Unixes default to even parity. You have 2 choices; either change the >parity for your port to even using /etc/gettydefs, or at the IBM end, It's even worse than that... the older version of Xenix use 7E1, while the more recent 2.2.x series uses 8N1. My solution, rather than change the default back to 7E1 was to create a little program called "uu7E1" (clever, right) which resets the parity and execs uucico. This is then made the login shell for certain ids which don't like no parity. The long term solution was, as you mentioned, to have the BSD machine calling me change to no parity. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
fred@cdin-1.uucp (Fred Rump) (04/08/88)
In article <1113@csuna.UUCP>, abcscnge@csuna.UUCP (Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl) writes: > When attempting to run UUCP from a IBM XENIX 1.0 system to an SCO XENIX V 2.2.1 > system, the IBM system calls up and logs in, and the SCO system responds with > to talk via UUCP. Any suggestions? GET RID OF 1.0 !!! > -- > Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl > UUCP: ...!ihnp4!csun!csuna!abcscnge My my, there are still 1.0 IBM's out there. We have a few IBM 2.0's left. We didn't even like that product and stopped selling it as not usable in customer environments. It's been SCO all the way. At least they talk to us. Anybody want ibm 2.0? Brand spanking new. ihnp4!bpa!cdin-1!fred in Philly
shear@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Mel Shear) (12/30/89)
I've been having uucp failures after updating to xenix 2.3.2 GT. Here are some of the error messages; shear rex (12/30-3:42:52,12365,1) CAUGHT (SIGNAL 1) shear rex (12/30-3:42:52,12365,1) FAILED (conversation complete) Am also getting a core dump and a lock file named LCK.S.0 every time the system trys to call other machines. Any help or advise will be much appreciated. Mel Shear !rex!shear
paterra@cs.odu.edu (Frank C. Paterra) (02/11/90)
I'm sure this has been answered before but ... I'm trying to use uucp for mail between my ps/2 model 80 running SCO xenix and a sun 3/XX. The xenix machine makes the call ok and connects, but nothing gets sent. As alternative test particles I tryed sending from - AT&T 3B2/400 <--> Xenix worked just fine AT&T 3B2/400 <--> Sun 3/XX Worked just fine So whats the problem? All help gratefully accepted. Frank Paterra paterra@cs.odu.edu -- Frank Paterra paterra@cs.odu.edu
pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha) (07/22/90)
When i installed the new version of Xenix/386 (2.3.2), suddenly the nodename was cut to 7 letters. But my previous nodename was 8 letters, and i had to install the 2.3.1 uucico again to even get a connection with my feed. Why this change? 8 letter nodenames are completely legal. Is there any remedy?