Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:18061 comp.mail.uucp:3816
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!puff!rt9.cs.wisc.edu!horn
From: horn@rt9.cs.wisc.edu (Mark Horn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCP protocols - in the future?
Summary: Huh?!? it works for me . . .
Keywords: UUCP, Z-Modem
Message-ID: <3899@puff.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 89 02:38:45 GMT
References: <5@olsa99.UUCP>
Sender: news@puff.cs.wisc.edu
Reply-To: horn@rt9.cs.wisc.edu (Mark Horn)
Distribution: comp
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 46

In article <5@olsa99.UUCP> mje@olsa99.UUCP (Mark J Elkins) writes:
>one) - but a plus for V32 and X25 (?)).  It also allows broken
>transferes to be re-started from were they broke.  At the moment, if
>you queue several jobs together and it falls over - all the jobs are
>resent!!  - unless they arrived with 'write-protect' - then they are
>only 'attempted'.

This phenomenon has never happened to me.  I often have problems with
a site that I uucp to and from.  This guy is kind enough to do my paths
file for me.  Anyway, I decided to split up the paths file and send 
all the parts to my machine on one request.  (I have a login on his machine 
so I did this from there) Something like:

uucp path.a* harier!/usr/spool/uucppublic 
             ^^^^^^
(* obviously harier is my machine *)

When I did this, I of course had the same problem over and over.  (I still
haven't fixed it)  One file got sent easily enough, but somewhere in the middle
of the second file, it bombed on me (his uucp just seemed to hang up.  It felt 
like a time-out, but he says that no timeout exists, anyway . . . )  I tried 
to call again but I didn't have the problem of getting the first file resent, 
or even re-tried.  It just picked up with the second file.  Granted it didn't 
start off in the middle, where the sending broke, but it resent only the second
file, and everything after that, but definately anything befor that one.  I of 
course had to do this a number of times, and each time it failed, uucp only
re-sent the job that failed, and not the ones that didn't fail.  

If it's of any interest I have an AT&T Unix-pc 3b1.  I'm running HDB on it
I don't know what release number.  He's running Version 2 uucp (the one that
was released with version 7 Unix.  Some people insist on calling this 
version 7 uucp, I don't know which is correct . . . ) He has a 286 and he's
running Xenix 2.?

Am I just confused, or is what I described correct?

- sparkie
--
p.s.	Please reply to one of the following addresses and NOT the one
	listed above.  Thanks!
 ___  ___  ___  ___  _  _  _  ___ 
/ __\| . \/ . \| . \| |/ /|_|| _ |  "Mothers Against Skunks Driving...
\__ \| __/|   || _ /|   < | || _[    ...because stinking and driving don't mix"
\___/|_|  |_|_||_|\\|_|\_\|_||___|           - heard on a madison radio station
ARPA:	harier!sparkie@cs.wisc.edu, sparkie@uhura.cs.wisc.edu
UUCP:	...{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!harier!sparkie