[unix-pc.uucp] problem with

jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (C. Jeffery Small) (10/22/88)

We are running the HDB version of uucp and friends on our 3B1/UNIX-PC.  I
just discovered a serious problem which I was hoping some of you (who also
run this version of the software) could verify.

When specifying the source-file component of a uucp request, uucp complains
with the error message  "illegal  syntax  <path>"  if the source-file
path contains more than one machine_name in the specification.  What is
particularly confusing about this is that the destination-file path does
not exhibit this restriction!  Some examples should make this clearer.

Assume that you are connected to "mach1" which has the file
						"/usr/spool/uucppublic/M1".

Also assume that "mach1" is connected to "mach2" which has the file
						"/usr/spool/uucppublic/M2".

Finally, assume that your machine contains the file
						"/usr/spool/uucppublic/XX"


The following commands all work:

	uucp  ~uucp/XX  mach1!~uucp/XX		# (send local file to mach1)

	uucp  ~uucp/XX  mach1!mach2!~uucp/XX	# (send local file to mach2)

	uucp  mach1!~uucp/M1  ~uucp/M1		# (pickup file from mach1)


But the following command results in the uucp error message:

	uucp  mach1!mach2!~uucp/M2  ~uucp/M2	# (pickup file from mach2)


There appears to be a bug in the uucp command which doesn't allow it to process
source-file specifications properly.  Note that this problem does not occur if
you use the standard supplied uucp - only the HDB version.  Since AT&T has not
elected to support this product, the Hotline doesn't even want to discuss this
problem.

So my question:  Can anyone else running HDB verify this problem, and short of
removing HDB from the system, is there a workaround for retrieving files with
multiple machine hops?

Thanks for any insights.
--
Jeffery Small    (206) 485-5596            uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp
C. Jeffery Small and Associates                                    !cjsa!jeff
19112 152nd Ave NE - Woodinville, WA  98072           uunet!nwnexus

andy@rbdc.UUCP (Andy Pitts) (10/23/88)

In article <137@cjsa.WA.COM> jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (C. Jeffery Small) writes:
>We are running the HDB version of uucp and friends on our 3B1/UNIX-PC.  I
>just discovered a serious problem which I was hoping some of you (who also
>run this version of the software) could verify.
>
>[...]
>But the following command results in the uucp error message:
>
>	uucp  mach1!mach2!~uucp/M2  ~uucp/M2	# (pickup file from mach2)
>
>



I  have  not  tried this, but I have had other attempts to forward files
through an intermediate system fail.  The manual page for HDB warns that
file forwarding is not compatible with earlier  versions  of  uucp.   I
would  check  and  see  if  all the systems you are trying to access are
using HDB.  If not, you might try something really strange like:

uux mach1!uucp mach2!~uucp/M2 \(yoursys!~uucp/M2\)

Of course mach1 must allow your system to execute uucp in its Permissions
file.

-- 
Andy Pitts andy@rbdc.UUCP  : "The giant Gorf was hit in  one eye  by a stone,
bakerst!rbdc!andy          : and that eye  turned  inward  so  that it looked
kd4nc!gladys!rbdc!andy     : into his mind and he died of what he saw there."
pacbell!gladys!rbdc!andy   :   --_The Forgotten Beast of Eld_, McKillip--

jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) (10/24/88)

In article <137@cjsa.WA.COM> jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (C. Jeffery Small) writes:
...
>But the following command results in the uucp error message:
>
>	uucp  mach1!mach2!~uucp/M2  ~uucp/M2	# (pickup file from mach2)
Just a guess -------------^---------^
You may be having local shell ~ interpretation problems. Try absolute.

John
-- 
John Bly Milton IV, jbm@uncle.UUCP, n8emr!uncle!jbm@osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu
home (614) 294-4823, work (614) 764-4272;  Send vi tricks, I'm making a manual

jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (Jeffery Small) (10/26/88)

This is a summary followup to my previous posting requesting help in getting
HDB uucp to allow multi-hop specifications in the source-file path description.

First of all, thanks to everyone who responded.  The bottom line is:

1: Although this was not directly related to the problem, many people pointed
   out that multi-hop uucp requests are going to fail unless you have permission
   to execute uucp on the remote machines.  It's good to keep this in mind.

2: The manual page for the original uucp distributed with OS 3.51 and earlier
   states that multi-hop specifications are allowed and the Hotline verified
   that this does indeed work.  I point this out for those who thought this
   was impossible or not documented.

3: For those who suggested I RTFM, I must point out that there was no
   documentation supplied with the HDB distribution for the unix-pc.  Since
   there is nothing I would like better, if there is there a kind soul who has
   the HDB man pages and would be willing to send me a (photo or electronic)
   copy, please drop me a note so we could make the appropriate arrangements.
   
4: So, is the HDB uucp behavior a bug or a feature?  I contacted Peter
   Honeyman and his reply was:

>	"this is not a bug, it was a conscious decision on the part of dan,
>	ber, and myself."

   Case closed!  ... well almost.  While I can understand the real-world
   limitations of multi-hop uucp requests and the reasons for the mods during
   the rewrite of uucp, there are some cases where it does make sense to
   allow this behavior.  For example, I have a string of secure unix-pc
   machines, all with rs232 connections to one-another.  Since I allow uucp
   command permission between these machines, it seems reasonable that I
   be able to make requests for file copy from any machine to any other
   machine.  You are now prohibited from doing this [directly].

5: And finally, is there a workaround?  "Use mail" was suggested a number
   of times and a thanks to Brant Cheikes, who offered the following idea:

>	    "I suspect that the proper thing to do is construct a uux command
>	that executes a uucp command on the remote system to uucp the desired
>	file to the local host, and then once that file has arrived, uucp's it
>	on the the desired destination.  It's probably going to look crufty,
>	but it will probably work if all the intervening Permissions are set
>	right (and the remote system includes "uucp" in its COMMANDS line of
>	the Permissions file).


So that's the whole story.  Thanks again to everyone who contributed to my
better understanding of what was going on.
--
Jeffery Small    (206) 485-5596            uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp
C. Jeffery Small and Associates                                    !cjsa!jeff
19112 152nd Ave NE - Woodinville, WA  98072           uunet!nwnexus