Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: net.dcom,net.bugs.uucp Subject: Re: Re: Micom 224+ problems Message-ID: <411@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 11:38:39 EST Article-I.D.: mnetor.411 Posted: Thu Apr 11 11:38:39 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 13:42:38 EST References: <306@linus.UUCP> <403@mnetor.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 41 Xref: utcs net.dcom:925 net.bugs.uucp:464 in <403@mnetor.UUCP> I, myself, write: > We are encountering a very similar problem when our Pyramid (BSD4.2 > talk to System V uucps. > ... > dialup or direct lines). They *always* TIMEOUT. We don't have this > ... > "w"'s that you mention are directly related to the problem. I think > that this is an inconsistency between System V and BSD hangup > sequences and the "w"'s are just a idiosyncracy of your lines Munging around in both BSD and SysV "cico.c" code, I found a slight inconsistency: alarm(MAXMSGTIME); omsg('O', "OOOOO", Ofn); DEBUG(4, "send OO %d,", ret); if (!setjmp(Sjbuf)) { for (;;) { /* the following line is NOT in System V */ omsg('O', "OOOOO", Ofn); ret = imsg(msg, Ifn); if (ret != 0) break; if (msg[0] == 'O') break; } } From the -x9 logs it looked very much like the BSD uucico was waiting for another 'O' message (a second one). I put it in the System V version, downloaded it to one of our System V remotes, and it worked just fine. By the way, regarding the suggested "strip parity" fix mentioned earlier, I have found that our BSD cico strips parity in imsg but the System V doesn't. I will have to investigate that too. Any comments from uucp experts? Which is right - strip parity on both ends, updating System V omsg('O'...) to match BSD, or both? -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321