peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/10/90)
Is it *really* too much to ask that people include an Archive-name: entry in postings to alt.sources? It is such a little thing, and saves countless hours of poring through files with names like "30Jul90.17652". Just put, on the first line of the message: Archive-name: wp2latex/Part01 -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
leres@ace.ee.lbl.gov (Craig Leres) (08/11/90)
Peter da Silva writes: > Is it *really* too much to ask that people include an Archive-name: entry > in postings to alt.sources? It is such a little thing, and saves countless > hours of poring through files with names like "30Jul90.17652". Just put, on > the first line of the message: Yes, I think it *really* is. The poor suckers can't remember to post alt.sources discussion to alt.sources.d, how do you expect them to remember to add your header? It'd be one thing if news software could be configured to require extra header(s) on a per newsgroup basis but you're talking about something that has to be manually added. Personally, I think you should just give it up (and I'm sure you'll flame me for saying so). Meanwhile, the rest of us will just kick back and snicker every time you continue your (hopeless) one man crusade by gracing the net with another "archive-name" posting... Craig
src@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org (Heiko Blume) (08/12/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Is it *really* too much to ask that people include an Archive-name: entry >in postings to alt.sources? It is such a little thing, and saves countless >hours of poring through files with names like "30Jul90.17652". Just put, on >the first line of the message: >Archive-name: wp2latex/Part01 while we're at it: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE add version numbers to the postings!!! (i.e. wp2latex-1.0) I'm often having a really hard time finding out what version a given software is (i'm archiving a lot here by topic, not by newsgroup). since i don't have BSD i can't save the stuff in a directory named 'wp2latex-posting-of-9-Aug-1990'..... thanks in advance!! -- Heiko Blume c/o Diakite blume@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org FAX (+49 30) 882 50 65 Kottbusser Damm 28 blume@netmbx.UUCP VOICE (+49 30) 691 88 93 D-1000 Berlin 61 blume@netmbx.de TELEX 184174 intro d scuzzy Any ACU,e 19200 6919520 ogin:--ogin: nuucp ssword: nuucp
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/12/90)
In article <6443@helios.ee.lbl.gov> leres@helios.ee.lbl.gov (ucbvax!leres for uucp weenies) writes: > Peter da Silva writes: > > Is it *really* too much to ask that people include an Archive-name: entry > > in postings to alt.sources? It is such a little thing, and saves countless > > hours of poring through files with names like "30Jul90.17652". Just put, on > > the first line of the message: > Yes, I think it *really* is. > The poor suckers can't remember to post alt.sources discussion to > alt.sources.d, how do you expect them to remember to add your header? It's not *my* header. It's the standard header on *every* posting in *every* moderated sources group. It's a de-facto standard for everyone on the net. > It'd be one thing if news software could be configured to require extra > header(s) on a per newsgroup basis but you're talking about something > that has to be manually added. So does putting a posting into shar format, uuencoding binaries, and so on. Look at it this way: when you post something to alt.sources you're doing it because you want people to use your code. You go to the trouble of sharring it up, splitting it, and so on to try to ensure that people can use it. You go to the trouble of putting a meaningful subject line so that people can find it. And after all that it doesn't get archived because news guys don't have the time to read and file every sources posting that comes in. Seems pretty counterproductive to me. -- NAME: Peter da Silva. WOLF: `-_-' PSTN: +1 713 274 5180. 'U` DNS: peter@ferranti.com BITNET: Oavzgsz@AcadiaU.CA
jef@ace.ee.lbl.gov (Jef Poskanzer) (08/13/90)
In the referenced message, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: }And after all that it doesn't get archived because news guys don't have the }time to read and file every sources posting that comes in. As I pointed out recently, you're wrong about this. The only archiving mechanism necessary for alt.sources is compressed numbered article files with an index of subjects. And indeed, the only operating FTPable archive of alt.sources uses precisely this mechanism. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef Speak softly and carry a terawatt laser.
shurr@cbnews.att.com (Larry A. Shurr) (08/13/90)
In article <6443@helios.ee.lbl.gov> leres@helios.ee.lbl.gov (ucbvax!leres for uucp weenies) writes: }Peter da Silva writes: }} Is it *really* too much to ask that people include an Archive-name: entry }} in postings to alt.sources?... }Yes, I think it *really* is. Whereas it is in reality no such thing. }The poor suckers can't remember to post alt.sources discussion to }alt.sources.d, how do you expect them to remember to add your header? Bad enough to bash Peter da Silva, a net contributor, but useless, self- serving bashing of naive netters contributes nothing to this discussion. }It'd be one thing if news software could be configured to require extra }header(s) on a per newsgroup basis but you're talking about something }that has to be manually added. Manual, yes, but not difficult to do. No trouble for any netter once educated in the practice. It greatly reduces the amount of work for those who administer archives of posted materials. It's not much to ask in order to assist those who provide this service. }Personally, I think you should just give it up (and I'm sure you'll }flame me for saying so). Meanwhile, the rest of us will just kick back }and snicker every time you continue your (hopeless) one man crusade by }gracing the net with another "archive-name" posting... Well, not ALL the rest of us. Many (most?) probably don't even care. Others think that those who administer archives deserve a little assist- ance. Still others think... well, others think all kinds of things, some worthwhile and some not. -- Larry A. Shurr (cbnmva!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbnmva!las) The end of the world has been delayed due to a shortage of trumpet players. (The above reflects my opinions, not those of AGS or AT&T, but you knew that.)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/14/90)
In article <6462@helios.ee.lbl.gov> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: > In the referenced message, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: > }And after all that it doesn't get archived because news guys don't have the > }time to read and file every sources posting that comes in. > As I pointed out recently, you're wrong about this. The only archiving > mechanism necessary for alt.sources is compressed numbered article files > with an index of subjects. Well, yes. And a flat file system with numbered files is quite adequate for any other purpose as well, if you keep a good list of files up to date in a conventional numbered file. In fact, why use files? Just store data in numbered blocks and keep an indexed list of block ranges, like Forth does. Exxagerated, yes. But named files are a lot more convenient. > And indeed, the only operating FTPable archive > of alt.sources uses precisely this mechanism. And the BBS that I run that offers this service uses named files, because it's more convenient that all archive sites have the same name for a given file. When there's more than one FTPable archive of alt.sources how will you refer to a given article? Hey, check out 4278 on well.sf.ca.us! What's that on cs.vu.nl? Um, I think it's 23Jul90.1475@ai.mit.edu at cs.vu.nl. What do they call their index? We do keep an index file with arbitrary file names, but it's a real pain for our users to download and scan. Not everyone runs at T1 speeds. -- NAME: Peter da Silva. WOLF: `-_-' PSTN: +1 713 274 5180. 'U` DNS: peter@ferranti.com BITNET: Oavzgsz@AcadiaU.CA
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) (08/14/90)
As quoted from <-Z45SQ2@ggpc2.ferranti.com> by peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva): +--------------- | In article <6443@helios.ee.lbl.gov> leres@helios.ee.lbl.gov (ucbvax!leres for uucp weenies) writes: | > Peter da Silva writes: | > > Is it *really* too much to ask that people include an Archive-name: entry | > > in postings to alt.sources? It is such a little thing, and saves countless | > > hours of poring through files with names like "30Jul90.17652". Just put, on | > > the first line of the message: | | > Yes, I think it *really* is. | | > The poor suckers can't remember to post alt.sources discussion to | > alt.sources.d, how do you expect them to remember to add your header? | | It's not *my* header. It's the standard header on *every* posting in *every* | moderated sources group. It's a de-facto standard for everyone on the net. +-^^^^^^^^^----- alt.sources isn't moderated.... +--------------- | Look at it this way: when you post something to alt.sources you're doing it | because you want people to use your code. You go to the trouble of sharring | it up, splitting it, and so on to try to ensure that people can use it. You | go to the trouble of putting a meaningful subject line so that people can | find it. +--------------- They split it because the news software often rejects it otherwise. They shar it because the net flames them if they don't. You wouldn't believe how many submissions I receive that aren't shar'ed, that don't hve meaningful subject lines (or sometimes any subject lines at all). And I've received maybe five submissions that included suggested archive names since the inception of comp.sources.misc, aside from the sub-moderated Australian postings. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF: KB8JRR/KT on 220 (soon others) Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Delphi: ALLBERY uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery America OnLine: KB8JRR
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/14/90)
In article <1990Aug14.003446.19241@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes: > As quoted from <-Z45SQ2@ggpc2.ferranti.com> by peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva): > | It's not *my* header. It's the standard header on *every* posting in *every* > | moderated sources group. It's a de-facto standard for everyone on the net. > alt.sources isn't moderated.... Which is why I'm making this request, and trying to pursuade people to put the header on postings to alt.sources. Heaven knows, some of these people are first class programmers. It's not that hard, and there's certainly no good reason to *not* put the header in there. > They split it because the news software often rejects it otherwise. They shar > it because the net flames them if they don't. Well, consider this a kindler and gentler version of the same thing... -- NAME: Peter da Silva. WOLF: `-_-' PSTN: +1 713 274 5180. 'U` DNS: peter@ferranti.com BITNET: Oavzgsz@AcadiaU.CA
lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) (08/16/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Aug14.003446.19241@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes: >> alt.sources isn't moderated.... >Which is why I'm making this request, and trying to pursuade people to >put the header on postings to alt.sources. Heaven knows, some of these >people are first class programmers. It's not that hard, and there's >certainly no good reason to *not* put the header in there. I can't take this any more. Do you what one has to go through to post stuff to the net? (Actually, you probably do.) As the recent author of the lj2ps program (posted to comp.sources.misc), I have had some first-hand experience doing this. Let me tell you, it ain't fun, it ain't intuitive, and it ain't easy. Aside from the system dependencies that one has to worry about, there are quite a few annoying things that one has to do just to get the program out there. I had to install a new version of shar just to get my program easily split into less-than-50k chunks. Then, after carefully packaging the stuff up, I unpacked it and recompiled it, just to make sure all of the packing worked (i.e. I wasn't losing characters in the shar files). I did this several times, and I still messed up my first posting (I forgot about all of the escape characters in the Test Suite). What I am trying to point out is that it takes a fair bit of "know how" to package programs up for the net. And I am not just a casual user of USENET. I have been reading netnews for five years now. I have also installed CNews on our machine. And *I* have a hard time posting to the net! I wonder how other less knowledgable users get through this experience. About the archive-header issue: Peter, I have read your postings for quite a while, including much in comp.sys.amiga. I respect your views a lot, and will usually read your articles just because you wrote them. However, I disagree with current your complaint that people should be using these special archive-header. If you want them to use it, then you must make it *painfully* obvious that it is necessary. Why do I say this? Because before you brought it up lately, I had *never* heard of this archive-header. And I am not a "casual user." >> They split it because the news software often rejects it otherwise. They >> shar it because the net flames them if they don't. >Well, consider this a kindler and gentler version of the same thing... I think what is needed is some document (argh, yet another document!) stating all the stuff that one needs to go through to post programs to the net. And it needs to be put someplace very obvious, so everyone knows it exists and has access to it when they want to post programs to be shared. As it stands now, posting software to the net is a big pain-in-the-ass. It is certainly not an experience that I want to go through again soon. If we want more people to post more useful stuff to the net, we need to make it much easier to do so (and not *harder*). Complaining about yet-another-obscure-header is not helping. If posting software to the net becomes any harder, the authors of the programs may not distribute just because it is a time-consuming and frustrating task to actually get the software out on the USENET. -- Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485 "Dad, don't give in to mob mentality!" Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene -- Bart Simpson lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu "I'm not, Son. I'm jumping on the bandwagon." uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka -- Homer Simpson
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (08/17/90)
christopher lishka complains (quite rightly) that posting a large piece of source code to the net and satisfying everyone is hard. (even if the code works perfectly). shar formats, archive header information, etc are all problematic. alt.sources is entirely samizdat, you get no help from nobody. If you have something you want to share and it's finished and it can wait a few days, send it to comp.sources.misc (if it's smallish) or comp.sources.unix (if it's biggish or brilliant). It might take a little while. Brandon and Rich are pro's at this, they know how to deal with 40 part mixed text and binary horrors, so anything you throw at them they can shar. there are a number of other ways of distributing things. find an ftp site that will take your works; comp.archives or the Granrose list are good candidates. Better yet, find an FTP site that also has anonymous UUCP or mail server access so that you can tell everyone who asks how to get it. bitnet listserv's might be appropriate too for some if they're locally handy. If you announce your new software in any of over a hundred newsgroups, I'll probably find it and mention it to comp.archives. --Ed Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv@math.lsa.umich.edu> moderator, comp.archives.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/17/90)
In article <1990Aug16.151010.17925@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu> lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) writes: > I can't take this any more. Do you what one has to go through to post > stuff to the net? (Actually, you probably do.) Yep. I moderated a sources group for a while. > Let me tell you, it ain't fun, it ain't intuitive, and it ain't easy. > ...before you brought it up lately, I had > *never* heard of this archive-header. And I am not a "casual user." OK, I'll start a FAQ for alt.sources. Send suggestions for topics to peter@hackercorp.com. I don't have internet access, so I'll have to take people's word on what archive sites exist and where the latest shar can be gotten. Let's see, what should be in here: What alt.sources is for... What alt.sources.d is for... What alt.sources.index is for... What other periodic postings to alt.sources are... Where to get uuencode/uudecode/cshar/etc... How big to make chunks of source code... How a posting should be formatted... What headers should be there... This last is more than just "Archive-name:", if you're posting source people are more likely to see it if it isn't titled "Re: problems with fucalc 2.3". What else? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com (currently not working) peter@hackercorp.com
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (08/18/90)
In the referenced message, peter@hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
}OK, I'll start a FAQ for alt.sources.
You are not qualified to do this for at least two reasons. One, you
are not on the Internet, so as you said your ability to verify
information in a timely fashion is crippled. This is a minor point; if
there was no one else willing to do it, and if there were no other
reasons you shouldn't do it, then it would be fine. But there are
others willing, and there are other reasons. Specifically, you are not
impartial.
It's fine to have opinions, even wrong ones. But a FAQ posting must
represent either objective facts or general consensus. Your opinions
on the Archive-Name header are neither, and codifying them into
official rules, as you propose to do, would be an abuse of trust.
A FAQ posting for alt.sources is a good idea, which I have supported
for a long time. But by your own words you are not the person to do
it.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef
Contains no artificial sweeteners or colors.sja2@cbnewsd.att.com (steve.j.alesch) (08/18/90)
> OK, I'll start a FAQ for alt.sources. Send suggestions for topics to > peter@hackercorp.com. I don't have internet access, so I'll have to take > people's word on what archive sites exist and where the latest shar can > be gotten. Let's see, what should be in here: > > What alt.sources is for... > What alt.sources.d is for... > What alt.sources.index is for... > What other periodic postings to alt.sources are... > Where to get uuencode/uudecode/cshar/etc... > How big to make chunks of source code... > How a posting should be formatted... > What headers should be there... > > This last is more than just "Archive-name:", if you're posting source > people are more likely to see it if it isn't titled "Re: problems with > fucalc 2.3". > > What else? How about a write-up for authors regarding how to create patches and and also a write-up on how one applies patches. -- Steve Alesch, AT&T Bell Labs, ...!att!ihlpm!sja, (708)713-4188
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (08/19/90)
In article <19599@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: > You are not qualified to do this for at least two reasons. One, you > are not on the Internet, so as you said your ability to verify > information in a timely fashion is crippled. You have a point here. > This is a minor point; if > there was no one else willing to do it, and if there were no other > reasons you shouldn't do it, then it would be fine. But there are > others willing, So where the hell are they? Nobody else has offered. > and there are other reasons. Specifically, you are not > impartial. Do you mean that my views don't co-incide with yours. That's what this particular buzz phrase usually means. Nobody, including Mr. Jef "Automatic Alt.sources Email Flamer" is impartial. The question is whether their private axes are going to get in the way. And the only way to find that out in this case is to see what I come up with and see if it's rational, impartial, and reliable. If you're willing to do the job, do it. If you're not, get out of the way. > It's fine to have opinions, even wrong ones. But a FAQ posting must > represent either objective facts or general consensus. Your opinions > on the Archive-Name header are neither, and codifying them into > official rules, as you propose to do, would be an abuse of trust. Well, they're already existing practice in (a) all moderated sources groups (including alt.sources.amiga), (b) a reasonable percentage of actual alt.sources postings, and (c) existing source-group archiving software. For that matter, your own position that noting but sources should be posted to alt.sources (which, by the way, I agree with) is not that much better adhered to. Besides, since when is anything in "alt" "official"? All I propose to do is collect suggestions, combine them into a reasonably coherent document, and post it periodically. > A FAQ posting for alt.sources is a good idea, which I have supported > for a long time. But by your own words you are not the person to do > it. If not me, who? If not now, when? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) (08/19/90)
In article <19599@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: >In the referenced message, peter@hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: >}OK, I'll start a FAQ for alt.sources. > >You are not qualified to do this for at least two reasons. One, you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >are not on the Internet, so as you said your ability to verify >information in a timely fashion is crippled. This is a minor point; if ^^^^^^^^ huh?!! ^^^^^ and spurious >Specifically, you are not impartial. You are the one who's whining over a good idea, Bonzo. Go cry to Momma; don't do it here. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Tucker, TuckerWare gatech!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -- Albert Einstein
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (08/20/90)
It can be hard to find net participants who care enough to keep track of what's going on without having any potentially controversial opinions. I think it's better to err on the side of more information rather than to try and impose litmus tests on a potential information provider. If someone wants to start an FAQ here, let 'em. If the contents are an egregious mishmash, the membership will make its feelings known quickly enough. Ideally the contents of an FAQ posting are jointly arrived at and cooperatively updated to reflect current knowledge. No one person's opinions, including the administrator's, should predominate. If the administrator has a particular hobbyhorse (like Archive-Header) he wants included in the FAQ, fine, but if significant member disagreement exists on the point, that should be mentioned too. -- Technology is a way of organizing ' ' Tom Neff the universe so that man doesn't have ' ' tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM to experience it. -- Max Frisch ' ' uunet!bfmny0!tneff
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (08/20/90)
In the referenced message, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: }Nobody, including Mr. Jef "Automatic Alt.sources Email Flamer" is impartial. }The question is whether their private axes are going to get in the way. Yes, that is what I mean by impartial. As I said, it is fine to have opinions. It is not fine to abuse a position of trust in the furtherance of those opinions. }And }the only way to find that out in this case is to see what I come up with and }see if it's rational, impartial, and reliable. You posted a list of things you thought should go in the FAQ list. One of them was not impartial. }If you're willing to do the job, do it. }If you're not, get out of the way. I already manage three FAQ postings, soon to be four. This is too many for one person, and I would be glad to hand them off to anyone who is qualified. Conflicts of interest have already come up, in my own perhaps overly picky opinion. Since I am not specially qualified to do alt.sources, I won't. However, responses of the form "if you won't do it then shut up" are obnoxious and boring. I have made a valid objection. Answer it, or shut up. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef "It is an honor to be asked to help." -- Suzie Gomez
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (08/20/90)
In article <19623@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: > You posted a list of things you thought should go in the FAQ list. One > of them was not impartial. For our viewers who have tuned into this fun-filled exchange late, I believe that all source postings should have an archive-name header, just like in the moderated groups. A fair number already do. I included a reference to this in my list of proposed topics in an alt.sources FAQ posting. I also solicited feedback... if it's a taboo subject, I'll be happy to drop it. So far, though, only one person has complained. > However, responses of the form "if you won't do it then shut up" are > obnoxious and boring. I have made a valid objection. Answer it, or > shut up. You deleted the portion of my message where I supported this particular item. Might I assume, then, that your response is just more rhetoric? It's pretty poor form to complain about my not performing a certain action in response to a message in which I did that very thing. In addition, where are all these other eager volunteers you were talking about? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
src@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org (Heiko Blume) (08/22/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Which is why I'm making this request, and trying to pursuade people to >put the header on postings to alt.sources. an *please* add version numbers to the sources (README) *and* the subject !! btw: what version is wp2latex? the rcsid in wp2latex says 2.0, but what does rcs know! (did the author check out the source just before posting?) have mercy (with people running archives) ! -- Heiko Blume c/o Diakite blume@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org FAX (+49 30) 882 50 65 Kottbusser Damm 28 blume@netmbx.UUCP VOICE (+49 30) 691 88 93 D-1000 Berlin 61 blume@netmbx.de TELEX 184174 intro d scuzzy Any ACU,e 19200 6919520 ogin:--ogin: nuucp ssword: nuucp
src@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org (Heiko Blume) (08/23/90)
lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) writes: >I think what is needed is some document (argh, yet another document!) >stating all the stuff that one needs to go through to post programs to >the net. And it needs to be put someplace very obvious, so everyone >knows it exists and has access to it when they want to post programs >to be shared. that sound like a topic for a monthly faq posting :-) however, *i* would prefer a program (or a feature of {nn,rn,trn,whatever}) ! something like :submit (nn style here) for moderated groups and/or :postdir that asks for the directory where the sources are. that way we could also solve the header problem. -- Heiko Blume c/o Diakite blume@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org FAX (+49 30) 882 50 65 Kottbusser Damm 28 blume@netmbx.UUCP VOICE (+49 30) 691 88 93 D-1000 Berlin 61 blume@netmbx.de TELEX 184174 intro d scuzzy Any ACU,e 19200 6919520 ogin:--ogin: nuucp ssword: nuucp