erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/19/88)
I recently saw a reference to "getting mailx from The Store!". I
check the version of the catalog I have. 9/01/87. No bueno.
Is there a version of the catalog newer than that? I check
last month, and there wasn't.
Anyway. Where do I get mailx for the 3b1, ver 3.0?
--
Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy...
Spelling errors are directly related to how little time I have...
J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
..!bellcore!tness1!/sean@killer.UUCP (Sean McCollister) (06/19/88)
In article <916@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > > I recently saw a reference to "getting mailx from The Store!". I > check the version of the catalog I have. 9/01/87. No bueno. > Is there a version of the catalog newer than that? I check > last month, and there wasn't. As far as I know, mailx for unix-pc is available only to AT&T employees. It's in the AT&T "Private Department" along with Honey DanBer and some other stuff. (I haven't had a 7300/3b1 since March, so I may be speaking from ignorance, but I don't believe those "Private" things have become public.) --Sean
sbw@naucse.UUCP (Steve Wampler) (06/20/88)
From article <4505@killer.UUCP>, by sean@killer.UUCP (Sean McCollister): > In article <916@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >> I recently saw a reference to "getting mailx from The Store!". I [...] > As far as I know, mailx for unix-pc is available only to AT&T employees. > ... > but I don't believe those "Private" things have become public.) Ok, I'll believe that. Now, what can us po' folk do to try and get that changed? Is there anyone we should write in such an attempt, or is this one of those decisions that is controlled by lawyers? I don't have to have everything, but there are some "Private" things I'd like to have. (Aw, come on, ATT, think of this as a bone tossed to us faithful dogs who liked the UNIX-PC enough to buy one before the fire-sale!) -- Steve Wampler {....!arizona!naucse!sbw}
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (06/21/88)
In article <4505@killer.UUCP> sean@killer.UUCP (Sean McCollister) writes: >In article <916@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >> >> I recently saw a reference to "getting mailx from The Store!". I >> check the version of the catalog I have. 9/01/87. No bueno. >> Is there a version of the catalog newer than that? I check >> last month, and there wasn't. > > >As far as I know, mailx for unix-pc is available only to AT&T employees. >It's in the AT&T "Private Department" along with Honey DanBer and some >other stuff. > >(I haven't had a 7300/3b1 since March, so I may be speaking from ignorance, >but I don't believe those "Private" things have become public.) Right. However, as an ex-mailx-from-the-store user, I can recommend mush, which was recently posted to the comp.sources.somethingorother group. It has stuff in it for tailoring to the UNIX PC. While still imperfect, it is a better tool with its bugs than mailx is in its perfection. Besides, you get source, and you can help Dan Heller find out what is wrong with the curses interface on the UNIX PC. (I have not had the time and inclination). Dan only has BSD unix, so has some trouble keeping the thing current on SYSV boxes. With help, this could become just as good for us. I had mailx for a long time. I forget my reasons at the time, but I remember thinking that Elm was much better when I changed over to that. The support for Elm stopped, with some annoying bugs still unfixed, and after a couple of years I changed over to mush. I have had it a few months, and like it a lot, more than Elm. I use mush and smail (both are supplied with sources). Find it from an archive, or from some nearby neighbor, or mail me and we'll see what we can work out.
spear@druco.ATT.COM (Steve Spearman) (06/22/88)
in article <739@naucse.UUCP>, sbw@naucse.UUCP (Steve Wampler) says: > Xref: druco comp.sys.att:3489 unix-pc.general:190 > > From article <4505@killer.UUCP>, by sean@killer.UUCP (Sean McCollister): >> In article <916@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >> As far as I know, mailx for unix-pc is available only to AT&T employees. > Ok, I'll believe that. Now, what can us po' folk do to try and get that > changed? Is there anyone we should write in such an attempt... I hope that everyone recognizes that a company as big as AT&T can be rather poor at internal communication. There are quite a few of us AT&T employees on the net with Unix PCs, and believe me that we are not happy about the situation either. Personally, I tried some internal suggestion lines to get some of this stuff released and it just fell into a black hole. It would be nice if those people within AT&T who are at least close to the software distribution process (and there are some of you out there I know) would at least attempt to obtain some explanations to tell everybody. It really does look crummy that we won't give it away and we won't sell it and we won't even say why. Steve Spearman (att, ihtlt, ihnp4)!booboo!spear Definitely not speaking for AT&T
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (06/23/88)
In article <2920@druco.ATT.COM> spear@druco.ATT.COM (Steve Spearman) writes: >in article <739@naucse.UUCP>, sbw@naucse.UUCP (Steve Wampler) says: >> Xref: druco comp.sys.att:3489 unix-pc.general:190 >> >> From article <4505@killer.UUCP>, by sean@killer.UUCP (Sean McCollister): >>> In article <916@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >>> As far as I know, mailx for unix-pc is available only to AT&T employees. >> Ok, I'll believe that. Now, what can us po' folk do to try and get that >> changed? Is there anyone we should write in such an attempt... > > [takes AT&T to task for bad communication] > >Steve Spearman (att, ihtlt, ihnp4)!booboo!spear >Definitely not speaking for AT&T Hmmmmm. I came to this discussion a bit late, because I have tried and rejected use of mailx in favor of first Elm, and now Mush. So my interest is marginal. However, I am in the midst of reorganizing all the two hundred or so floppies and file folders I have around my office containing the various projects I have worked on (fiddled with?) over the years I have had a UNIX PC. One is interesting here: dated around February 1987, it comes from Emmet P. Gray, and claims to be a Berkeley Mail, or AT&T mailx clone. It is called Mail. It includes source code. It has a UNIX PC makefile. It does not have a man page or other separate documentation, other than a short note from Emmet. Is anyone familiar with this thing? Can anyone report how accurate the claim to be a mailx clone is? Does this thing work? How much interest is there for a repost? Emmet, are you listening? I'm just a packrat here: you're the originator.
isaac@gethen.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) (06/27/88)
I used mailx briefly and two things became apparent: (1) It's a S5 adaptation of the BSD program "Mail" (the capital M distinguishes it from the dumb mail, which it uses to actually post messages). (2) Whoever did that adaptation was a twit. Didn't keep things consistent, making it easy to accidentaly skip messages. But this gives me an idea, which you should probably think about before you do anything with it. When you buy Unix PC Unix, you're buying a binary license for both S5 and BSD. It seems to me (he says, as the ice groans under his weight) that if someone with legal accces to the Berkeley source code were to port Mail to the Unix PC, there'd be nothing wrong with him giving an executable (but not source) copy to anybody who already had a legitimate copy of Unix PC Unix. And the port would be damn easy -- many years back I did it to the the Onyx C8000, and I was a bad C programmer working with a putrid C compiler. Whoever wrote the original program had obviously just got out of a structured programming class!