Allfix 5.13
Peter Ellis
There are several files I receive that I want to do processing on but do not
wish them to be imported into any file base.
If I use deletefile then all is well but any other command always puts the
file into the databases.
For example I wanted to put the file BACKBONE.Z1B as a Bulletin on my system
but I do not want it in the file databases. I have tried copyfile. I have
created an execommand which moved the file to the bulletin area but ALLFIX
still trys to put it into the file area.
I am missing something obvious here I am sure.
I also get the same files from several different sources (different area
tags). I want to keep one and delete the other. However ALLFIX treats the
second file from the other area as a dupe and won't delete it.
Any help would be appreciated.
-
pete
Harald Harms
> If I use deletefile then all is well but any other command always
> puts the
> file into the databases.
Yes...that's quite correct...the other commands are executed after the file has
been imported.
> For example I wanted to put the file BACKBONE.Z1B as a Bulletin on my
> system
> but I do not want it in the file databases. I have tried copyfile. I
> have
> created an execommand which moved the file to the bulletin area but
> ALLFIX
> still trys to put it into the file area.
> I am missing something obvious here I am sure.
I think that you're trying to do something that no one else has, and that's why
it's not an option in ALLFIX. But, you could try a few other things:
1. Use the PassThruFile option to tell ALLFIX NOT to import the file ;-)
2. Use the MoveToArea option to move the file into another (dummy) fileecho.
3. Use the OtherPath option to have ALLFIX place the file into a different
directory and update the file base associated with that directory IF there is
one. If there isn't...then nothing is updated ;-)
You'll find these options in the Magic filename manager.
> I also get the same files from several different sources (different
> area
> tags). I want to keep one and delete the other. However ALLFIX treats
> the
> second file from the other area as a dupe and won't delete it.
Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is performed
before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name things are screened and
carried out if necessary. You could change the dupe checking criteria to
something that also include
BTW, my apologies for the late reply.
Harald Harms
Andy Brown
27 Jul 99 10:20, you wrote to Harald Harms:
BB> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BB> That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
Strange, it does not show up that way here..
=== Begin date.inf ===
€ ALLFIX_HELP (1:202/805) €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ ALLFIX_HELP €
Msg : 98 of 102 -89
From : Harald Harms 2:282/505 24 Jul 99 22:56:00
To : Peter Ellis 24 Jul 99 22:06:25
Subj : Allfix 5.13
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is performed
before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name things are screened and
carried out if necessary. You could change the dupe checking criteria to
something that also include
BTW, my apologies for the late reply.
=== End date.inf ===
I left the same part in that you quoted..
Andy
Barry Blackford
01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HH> Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is
HH> performed before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name
HH> things are screened and carried out if necessary. You could change
HH> the dupe checking criteria to something that also include BTW, my
HH> apologies for the late reply.
That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Andy Brown
28 Jul 99 10:55, you wrote to me:
BB> This IS very strange indeed, this time I have done a Cut`n'paste
BB> similar to yours to show it in the same context (not a quote):
BB> === Cut ===
BB> Got me stumped?
Was the first one by chance done from an off line reader?? If not it is
getting very strange..:<
Andy
Barry Blackford
26 Jul 99 at 20:22, Andy Brown writes to Barry Blackford:
AB> 27 Jul 99 10:20, you wrote to Harald Harms:
BB>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BB>> That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
AB> Strange, it does not show up that way here..
AB> === Begin date.inf ===
AB> € ALLFIX_HELP (1:202/805) €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
AB> ALLFIX_HELP € Msg : 98 of 102 -89 From : Harald Harms
AB> 2:282/505 24 Jul 99 22:56:00 To : Peter Ellis
AB> 24 Jul 99 22:06:25 Subj : Allfix 5.13
AB> €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
AB> €€€€€€€
AB> Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is
AB> performed before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name things
AB> are screened and carried out if necessary. You could change the dupe
AB> checking criteria to something that also include BTW, my apologies for
AB> the late reply.
AB> === End date.inf ===
AB> I left the same part in that you quoted..
This IS very strange indeed, this time I have done a Cut`n'paste similar to
yours to show it in the same context (not a quote):
=== Cut ===
Msg : 346 of 350 -336 +349
From : Harald Harms 2:282/505 01 Feb 80 00:00:00
To : Peter Ellis 25 Jul 99 20:01:18
Subj : Allfix 5.13
€1921€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Peter,
> If I use deletefile then all is well but any other command always
> puts the
> file into the databases.
Yes...that's quite correct...the other commands are executed after the file has
been imported.
=== Cut ===
Got me stumped?
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Peter Knapper
BB> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HH> Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is
HH> performed before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name
HH> things are screened and carried out if necessary. You could change
HH> the dupe checking criteria to something that also include BTW, my
HH> apologies for the late reply.
BB> That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
Hmmmm, the dates appear fine here (other than the 1 you quoted)......pk,.
Barry Blackford
28 Jul 99 at 11:03, Peter Knapper writes to Barry Blackford:
BB>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HH>> Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is
HH>> performed before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name
HH>> things are screened and carried out if necessary. You could change
HH>> the dupe checking criteria to something that also include BTW, my
HH>> apologies for the late reply.
BB>> That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
PK> Hmmmm, the dates appear fine here (other than the 1 you
PK> quoted)......pk,.
Seems that the JAM message base was storing something other message base types
aren't, it wasn't a problem because it was the only message like it .....?
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Barry Blackford
27 Jul 99 at 19:34, Andy Brown writes to Barry Blackford:
BB>> This IS very strange indeed, this time I have done a Cut`n'paste
BB>> similar to yours to show it in the same context (not a quote):
BB>> === Cut ===
BB>> Got me stumped?
AB> Was the first one by chance done from an off line reader?? If not it is
AB> getting very strange..:<
No, just quoted, the second one was a snap shot (cut`n'npaste), my message base
is all JAM type but you are not alone as you will have seen in the preceeding
messages....
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Andy Brown
28 Jul 99 23:22, you wrote to me:
BB> No, just quoted, the second one was a snap shot (cut`n'npaste), my
BB> message base is all JAM type but you are not alone as you will have
BB> seen in the preceeding messages....
What are you using for a message reader?? I just tested it with GoldEd and it
shows up fine as a "quote, reply"..
Andy
Barry Blackford
28 Jul 99 at 18:02, Andy Brown writes to Barry Blackford:
BB>> No, just quoted, the second one was a snap shot (cut`n'npaste), my
BB>> message base is all JAM type but you are not alone as you will have
BB>> seen in the preceeding messages....
AB> What are you using for a message reader?? I just tested it with GoldEd
AB> and it shows up fine as a "quote, reply"..
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv See below, Golded 3.00 Beta5+
Only messages from Harald show up like that (more than one).
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Robin Iwamoto
AB> What are you using for a message reader?? I just tested it
AB> with GoldEd and it shows up fine as a "quote, reply"..
BB> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv See below, Golded 3.00 Beta5+
BB> Only messages from Harald show up like that (more than one).
I agree. I am at work at the moment but when I looked the other day
(at the start of this thread to see what it was all about), two
messages from Harald showed as having the same date (the 1st of Feb
'80 I think) and time of 00:00 when reading using TimEd on a JAMbase.
Maybe his format is Y2K, we ain't, but just don't know it yet. <j/k>
Regards,
Robin
... Evaluation Day 1,094,583,217 - I Support Shareware!
Harald Harms
> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
> HH> Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is
> HH> performed before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name
> HH> things are screened and carried out if necessary. You could change
> HH> the dupe checking criteria to something that also include BTW, my
> HH> apologies for the late reply.
> That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
Yes, something appears to be going wrong here...I'll take a look at it right
away.
Greetings,
Harald Harms
Barry Blackford
01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Barry Blackford:
>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
At least it's consistant .....
>> HH> BTW, my apologies for the late reply.
>> That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
HH> Yes, something appears to be going wrong here...I'll take a look at it
HH> right away.
Does it show as that when yo are writing it Harald?
Just curious owing to the fact that not everyone is seeing it the same as I am
for some strange reason?
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Curtis Womble
Replying to a message of Harald Harms to Barry Blackford:
HH> Barry,
>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
HH>>> Hmmm...that's correct behavior actually. I mean...dupe checking is
HH>>> performed before "accepting" the file. Then the magic file name
HH>>> things are screened and carried out if necessary. You could change
HH>>> the dupe checking criteria to something that also include BTW, my
HH>>> apologies for the late reply.
>> That's an understatement looking at the date/time of your message.
HH> Yes, something appears to be going wrong here...I'll take a look at it
HH> right away.
HH> Greetings,
HH> Harald Harms
HH> -!-
HH> ! Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today!
HH> (2:282/505)
I recieved it here as 01 Feb 1980 00:00:00 for the date and time.
Latta, Curtis!
Jeffrey J. Counsil
To Harald Harms, Regarding Allfix 5.13...
CW> Hello Harald!
CW>
CW> Replying to a message of Harald Harms to Barry Blackford:
CW>
CW> HH> Barry,
CW>
>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
CW> I recieved it here as 01 Feb 1980 00:00:00 for the date and time.
CW>
CW> Latta, Curtis!
You guys ought to be looking for the rogue link that's changing the
date/time.. Harald's message came through here with the correct date and
time. So it would appear that Harald's system is "up to date" ;-)
Harald Harms
>>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
> At least it's consistant .....
Yup. Consistency is good ;-)
> HH> Yes, something appears to be going wrong here...I'll take a look at it
> HH> right away.
> Does it show as that when yo are writing it Harald?
> Just curious owing to the fact that not everyone is seeing it the
> same as I am for some strange reason?
No. Everything is fine here. I even checked the outgoing arcmail. I inspected
the PKT files and the dates they contain are correct. So...I have no idea
what's going on.
But I'll continue looking.
Harald Harms
Bob Seaborn
>
> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same message
and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in an HMB
messagebase.
Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
.....Bob
Curtis Womble
Replying to a message of Harald Harms to Barry Blackford:
HH> Barry,
>>>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
>> At least it's consistant .....
HH> Yup. Consistency is good ;-)
HH>>> Yes, something appears to be going wrong here...I'll take a look at
HH>>> it right away.
>> Does it show as that when yo are writing it Harald?
>> Just curious owing to the fact that not everyone is seeing it the same
>> as I am for some strange reason?
HH> No. Everything is fine here. I even checked the outgoing arcmail. I
HH> inspected the PKT files and the dates they contain are correct.
HH> So...I have no idea what's going on.
HH> But I'll continue looking.
HH> Harald Harms
HH> -!-
HH> ! Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today! (1:140/30)
Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one coming in
here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and Fleetstreet to read it
with here.
Latta, Curtis!
Bob Wingender
Monday August 02 1999 15:48, Bob Seaborn wrote to Curtis Womble:
BS> @MSGID: 1:140/12.1 810fc3f9
BS> @REPLY: 1:264/6 37a59514
BS> @TID: GE/32 1.2
>>
>>
>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00.
>> The only one coming in here with it like that. I'm using
>> Fastecho/2 to toss and Fleetstreet to read it with here.
BS> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read
BS> the same message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the
BS> datestamp.
BS> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read
BS> this in an HMB messagebase.
BS> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss. Date of 01 Feb 1980 and
time of 00:00.
Using Fastecho 386 and GoldED to read the messages.
BS> (1:140/12.1)
BS> @PATH: 140/12 1 270/101 396/1 284/99 12
And here's the path it took to get here.
-=[Bob]=-
Internet:
bwing...@earthlink.net [ICQ: 36444869]
... The shortest distance betwen two puns ... is a straight line.
Curtis Womble
Replying to a message of Bob Seaborn to Curtis Womble:
>>
>>
>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
BS> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
BS> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
BS> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in an
BS> HMB messagebase.
BS> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
BS> .....Bob
I would think the samething but Harold's messages are the only ones doing it.
Maybe it is y2k fixes. Let me look and see if I still have timed on here and
see what it says. Just looked at with Timed with the Y2k fix and get the
samething with it. All mine are JAM bases also. Could that be it. I'll try and
find another OS/2 reader and see.
Latta, Curtis!
Bob Seaborn
>BS> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
>
> Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss. Date of 01 Feb
> 1980 and time of 00:00.
>
> Using Fastecho 386 and GoldED to read the messages.
That points to FastEcho, possibly. What messagebase format? JAM?
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>
> I would think the samething but Harold's messages are the only ones
> doing it. Maybe it is y2k fixes. Let me look and see if I still have
> timed on here and see what it says. Just looked at with Timed with the
> Y2k fix and get the samething with it. All mine are JAM bases also.
> Could that be it. I'll try and find another OS/2 reader and see.
Well Bob Wingender is reporting the same thing and he also uses
FastEcho. Dunno what format of messagebase, tho'.
.....Bob
Graham Print
Monday August 02 1999 15:48, Bob Seaborn wrote to Curtis Womble:
>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
BS> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
BS> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
BS> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in an
BS> HMB messagebase.
Every message in every echo that Harald writes in are showing up here with
incorrect date/time. I'm using Fastecho & Jam Msgbase, this only started when
Harald made the change over.
Rgds.
Graham
email: gra...@fareham.com
... 3Com <-> UK FileGate SuperSite, V34+ & ISDN.
Ben Hamilton
>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
BS> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
BS> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
BS> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in an
BS> HMB messagebase.
GP> Every message in every echo that Harald writes in are showing up
GP> here with incorrect date/time. I'm using Fastecho & Jam Msgbase,
GP> this only started when Harald made the change over.
His messages look fine here, using WaterGate and timEd.
Date : Sun Aug 01, 18:06
From : Harald Harms
To : Barry Blackford
Subj : Allfix 5.13
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
$SGID: 1:140/30 6a91f1d5
$EPLY: 3:774/605 37a2d3cc
$ID: FM 2.2c.mL CS000052
$ID: ALLFIX/2+ 6.00.3 0EF0F39E
[...]
-+-
+ Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today! (1:140/30)
$EEN-BY: 130/224 222/10 229/1 600 240/0 244/99 282/2022 2200/120 2424/10 11 12
$EEN-BY: 2424/98 252 270 1106 1500 2600/1
$ATH: 140/30 140/1 270/101 396/1 2424/10 130/224
-Ben Hamilton,
Internet email: hb...@home.com
Bob Seaborn
> Every message in every echo that Harald writes in are showing up here
> with incorrect date/time. I'm using Fastecho & Jam Msgbase, this only
> started when Harald made the change over.
Hmmmm, it's starting to look like it's either FastEcho, JAM, or possibly
a combination of the two then.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>
> His messages look fine here, using WaterGate and timEd.
>
JAM?
.....Bob
Bob Wingender
Tuesday August 03 1999 00:31, Bob Seaborn wrote to Bob Wingender:
BS> Hi,
>>BS> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
>>
>> Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss.
>> Date of 01 Feb 1980 and time of 00:00. Using Fastecho 386
>> and GoldED to read the messages.
BS> That points to FastEcho, possibly. What messagebase
BS> format? JAM?
That's right.
If it's Fastecho, why don't I read other mail with 01 Feb 1980? Haralds the
only one I'm reading it like that.
So, I doubt it very much that FE is too blame.
BS> .....Bob
Hey, good! name... :)
-=[Bob]=-
Internet:
bwing...@earthlink.net [ICQ: 36444869]
... Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Ben Hamilton
BS> JAM?
Nope, Squish.
Graham Print
Tuesday August 03 1999 00:31, Bob Seaborn wrote to Bob Wingender:
>> Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss. Date of 01
>> Feb 1980 and time of 00:00. Using Fastecho 386 and GoldED to read
>> the messages.
BS> That points to FastEcho, possibly. What messagebase format?
BS> JAM?
You can't just point your finger at Fastecho + JAM. This message Date/Time
problem has only just started with messages from Harald. I have just scanned
back through 2894 messages in this echo and all messages from Harald up to and
including his message to Lawrence R. Mintz subject TZUTC dated 27-6-99 are all
showing the correct date/time. The next message from Harald to Peter Ellis
subject Allfix 5.13 and recieved here on the 25-7-99 is showing a date of 01
Feb 1980 and time of 00:00.
There are no messages in any echomail area from any other system showing this
problem. Your messages are showing the correct Date/Time as are everybody elses
except the ones from Harald.
Graham Print
Tuesday August 03 1999 07:37, Ben Hamilton wrote to Graham Print:
GP>> here with incorrect date/time. I'm using Fastecho & Jam Msgbase,
GP>> this only started when Harald made the change over.
BH> His messages look fine here, using WaterGate and timEd.
BH> Date : Sun Aug 01, 18:06
BH> From : Harald Harms
BH> To : Barry Blackford
BH> Subj : Allfix 5.13
BH> €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
BH> $SGID: 1:140/30 6a91f1d5
BH> $EPLY: 3:774/605 37a2d3cc
BH> $ID: FM 2.2c.mL CS000052
BH> $ID: ALLFIX/2+ 6.00.3 0EF0F39E
BH> [...]
BH> -+-
BH> + Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today! (1:140/30)
BH> $EEN-BY: 130/224 222/10 229/1 600 240/0 244/99 282/2022 2200/120
BH> 2424/10 11 12
BH> $EEN-BY: 2424/98 252 270 1106 1500 2600/1
BH> $ATH: 140/30 140/1 270/101 396/1 2424/10 130/224
That might be so but the same message here isn't.
=== Begin GOLDED.OUT ===
€ I'ntl ALLFIX Support (2:251/23) €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ ALLFIX_HELP €
Msg : 2681 of 2690 -2678 +2682
From : Harald Harms 1:140/30 01 Feb 80 00:00:00
To : Barry Blackford 02 Aug 99 09:31:37
Subj : Allfix 5.13
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
@MSGID: 1:140/30 6a91f1d5
@REPLY: 3:774/605 37a2d3cc
@PID: FM 2.2c.mL CS000052
@TID: ALLFIX/2+ 6.00.3 0EF0F39E
+ Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today! (1:140/30)
$PATH: 140/30 1 270/101 396/1
=== End GOLDED.OUT ===
Jerry Schwartz
Aug 02 21:18 99, Bob Wingender wrote to Bob Seaborn:
BW> Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss. Date of 01
BW> Feb 1980 and time of 00:00.
BW> Using Fastecho 386 and GoldED to read the messages.
BS>> (1:140/12.1)
BS>> @PATH: 140/12 1 270/101 396/1 284/99 12
The message had an appropriate date when it got here, via the path
140/30 1 270/101 396/1 142/906 928
I have one question for you: the first address in the path is supposed to be
the origin (without the zone), even though the message passed through the
zonegate. 140/30, the first system on the path I saw, is Harald's address.
Why does your copy show 140/12 as the first system on the path?
Regards,
Jerry
Curtis Womble
Replying to a message of Bob Seaborn to Curtis Womble:
BS> Morning,
>>
>> I would think the samething but Harold's messages are the only ones
>> doing it. Maybe it is y2k fixes. Let me look and see if I still have
>> timed on here and see what it says. Just looked at with Timed with the
>> Y2k fix and get the samething with it. All mine are JAM bases also.
>> Could that be it. I'll try and find another OS/2 reader and see.
BS> Well Bob Wingender is reporting the same thing and he also uses
BS> FastEcho. Dunno what format of messagebase, tho'.
BS> .....Bob
BS> -!- Tearline
BS> ! Origin: RegSite for AllFix, Gecho, WebUtil, InterMail (1:140/12.1)
Maybe I need to check in on the fastecho area and see. Getting ready to go on
vacation so it might be a week before I get to it. But it is pointing to
Fastecho.
Latta, Curtis!
Simon Avery
Hello all
>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
BS> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
BS> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
BS> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in an
BS> HMB messagebase.
I got a 1980 stamp. Path as below, software is Fastecho and Golded using
JAM. I suspect something touched the message on route, unless there is some
very weird inconsistency with Harold's pkts which is unlikely. :)
--
Simon
Barry Blackford
03 Aug 99 at 03:43, Graham Print writes to Bob Seaborn:
GP> Every message in every echo that Harald writes in are showing up here
GP> with incorrect date/time. I'm using Fastecho & Jam Msgbase, this only
GP> started when Harald made the change over.
So far JAM and Fastecho are common to all instamces I have seen, I would have
said Golded too till Curtis tried Timed and got the same results.
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Barry Blackford
02 Aug 99 at 23:11, Curtis Womble writes to Bob Seaborn:
CW> Replying to a message of Bob Seaborn to Curtis Womble:
>>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
BS>> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
BS>> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
BS>> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in
BS>> an HMB messagebase.
BS>> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
CW> I would think the samething but Harold's messages are the only ones
CW> doing it. Maybe it is y2k fixes. Let me look and see if I still have
CW> timed on here and see what it says. Just looked at with Timed with the
CW> Y2k fix and get the samething with it. All mine are JAM bases also.
CW> Could that be it. I'll try and find another OS/2 reader and see.
It may be something to do with JAM message bases picking up extra info then?
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Bob Seaborn
Hi,
>
>BS> That points to FastEcho, possibly. What messagebase
>BS> format? JAM?
>
> That's right.
Hmmmmm.
>
> If it's Fastecho, why don't I read other mail with 01 Feb 1980? Haralds
> the only one I'm reading it like that.
>
> So, I doubt it very much that FE is too blame.
I'm not suggesting that it is, however so far the only people reporting
a problem are using FastEcho and JAM.
>
>BS> .....Bob
>
> Hey, good! name... :)
>
> -=[Bob]=-
And I don't mind that you copied mine. :)
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>
>
> Nope, Squish.
Noted. :)
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
Morning Graham,
>
> Tuesday August 03 1999 00:31, Bob Seaborn wrote to Bob Wingender:
>
>>> Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss. Date of 01
>>> Feb 1980 and time of 00:00. Using Fastecho 386 and GoldED to read
>>> the messages.
>
>
>BS> That points to FastEcho, possibly. What messagebase format?
>BS> JAM?
>
> You can't just point your finger at Fastecho + JAM. This message
> Date/Time problem has only just started with messages from Harald. I
So far the only ones reporting problems use both FastEcho and JAM. I'd
like to know if someone uses one or the other - but not both, and whether
Harald's dates are correct or not.
> There are no messages in any echomail area from any other system showing
> this problem. Your messages are showing the correct Date/Time as are
> everybody elses except the ones from Harald.
I have no problem suspecting that something's wrong at Harald's end, I'm
just trying to help pin the cause down.
Please don't anybody think I'm slamming any particular software.
.....Bob
Barry Blackford
02 Aug 99 at 15:48, Bob Seaborn writes to Curtis Womble:
>>
>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
BS> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
BS> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
That's an assumption on your part Bob.
BS> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in
BS> an HMB messagebase.
BS> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
Could be so .... Path of your message follows:
BS> @PATH: 140/12 1 270/101 396/1 106/1
The path of the mesage from Harald to my system is as follows:
140/30 1 270/101 396/1 106/1
As you can see, the path from your system to mine is very close to Harald's,
and your message is fine while Harold's is not, his & only his still come in
with that same date and time. If it is Fastecho doing this I would have
expected more people to notice it - it would be good to get to the bottom of
it.
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Bob Seaborn
> Hello there Bob!
>
> 02 Aug 99 at 15:48, Bob Seaborn writes to Curtis Womble:
>
>>>
>>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
>
>BS> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
>BS> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
>
> That's an assumption on your part Bob.
It's about all I can go on at the moment.
>
>BS> I'm using InterMail's internal editor, IE.EXE to read this in
>BS> an HMB messagebase.
>
>BS> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
>
> Could be so .... Path of your message follows:
>
>BS> @PATH: 140/12 1 270/101 396/1 106/1
>
> The path of the mesage from Harald to my system is as follows:
>
> 140/30 1 270/101 396/1 106/1
>
> As you can see, the path from your system to mine is very close to
> Harald's, and your message is fine while Harold's is not, his & only his
They are virtually identical as Harald links to me, and I send it out.
:)
> still come in with that same date and time. If it is Fastecho doing this
> I would have expected more people to notice it - it would be good to get
> to the bottom of it.
Right now I'm wondering if it's a combination of FastEcho, Jam, and
whatever Harald's doing. If anyone uses JAM and not FastEcho, I'd like to know
what they see. Same goes for someone using FastEcho and not JAM.
I fully agree, let's get to the bottom of it.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
> Maybe I need to check in on the fastecho area and see. Getting ready to
> go on vacation so it might be a week before I get to it. But it is
> pointing to Fastecho.
>
I suspect it's Harald, Fastecho _and_ JAM right now. A wierd
combination.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>BS>> @PATH: 140/12 1 270/101 396/1 284/99 12
>
> The message had an appropriate date when it got here, via the path
>
> 140/30 1 270/101 396/1 142/906 928
>
> I have one question for you: the first address in the path is supposed
> to be the origin (without the zone), even though the message passed
> through the zonegate. 140/30, the first system on the path I saw, is
> Harald's address.
>
> Why does your copy show 140/12 as the first system on the path?
>
Two "Bob's" may be confusing you. :)
It's my path quoted first, then Harald's.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>BS> Hmmmm, it's starting to look like it's either FastEcho, JAM, or
>BS> possibly a combination of the two then.
>
> No way, if that was the case then everybody elses messages would be
> doing the same, and they are not.
Considering that you know how many people are using the echotosser that
Harald uses, I'm not so sure.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>
>> Maybe I need to check in on the fastecho area and see. Getting ready to
>> go on vacation so it might be a week before I get to it. But it is
>> pointing to Fastecho.
>
>BS> combination.
>
> To support the current theory, I too am using FastEcho and JAM; with
> timEd/2 as the reader. I also see the Feb 1, 1980 date only on Harald's
> messages.
Robin, would it be possible for you to make a change to your system and
use something OTHER than JAM for a test?
I'm thinking it may be some really odd quirk that requires FastEcho plus
JAM. After all, I'm sure that there's someone else out there who uses JAM but
not FastEcho who hasn't said anything because Harald's messages appear normal,
and I would like to get more and finer details on this for Harald.
>
> Oddly enough though, no one's tosser; including FastEcho, is rejecting
> the messages as grunged due to past dating. I don't know enough about
> the inner workings of tossers and msgformats to know why that might be,
> but it seems to be passing through the backbone hubs without being
> stopped as one might guess.
Which is why I'm suspecting that it may be a combination of the two.
>
> Perhaps it has NO date (or a date in an unexpected place), as opposed to
> an invalid date or a date percieved by FE to be in the past...?
Well, to be honest, I haven't physically examined the raw packets from
Harald as they come in here from him. That may be next. :)
.....Bob
Robin Iwamoto
> Maybe I need to check in on the fastecho area and see. Getting ready to
> go on vacation so it might be a week before I get to it. But it is
> pointing to Fastecho.
BS> I suspect it's Harald, Fastecho _and_ JAM right now. A wierd
BS> combination.
To support the current theory, I too am using FastEcho and JAM; with timEd/2 as
the reader. I also see the Feb 1, 1980 date only on Harald's messages.
Oddly enough though, no one's tosser; including FastEcho, is rejecting the
messages as grunged due to past dating. I don't know enough about the inner
workings of tossers and msgformats to know why that might be, but it seems to
be passing through the backbone hubs without being stopped as one might guess.
Perhaps it has NO date (or a date in an unexpected place), as opposed to an
invalid date or a date percieved by FE to be in the past...?
Regards,
Robin
Graham Print
Tuesday August 03 1999 10:20, Bob Seaborn wrote to Graham Print:
>> here with incorrect date/time. I'm using Fastecho & Jam Msgbase,
>> this only started when Harald made the change over.
BS> Hmmmm, it's starting to look like it's either FastEcho, JAM, or
BS> possibly a combination of the two then.
No way, if that was the case then everybody elses messages would be doing the
same, and they are not.
Rgds.
Graham Print
Wednesday August 04 1999 01:04, Bob Seaborn wrote to Graham Print:
>> There are no messages in any echomail area from any other system
>> showing this problem. Your messages are showing the correct
>> Date/Time as are everybody elses except the ones from Harald.
BS> I have no problem suspecting that something's wrong at Harald's
BS> end, I'm just trying to help pin the cause down.
I suspect that it is an incompatability with the date field in messages
originating from Harald and What either Fastecho expects or not in the correct
format that JAM stores it.
BS> Please don't anybody think I'm slamming any particular
BS> software.
The fact that no other messages from any other system/mail tosser is causing
problems obviously points to an error being produced by Harald's Echomail
Processor.
Graham Print
Wednesday August 04 1999 13:57, Barry Blackford wrote to Graham Print:
BB> So far JAM and Fastecho are common to all instamces I have seen, I
BB> would have said Golded too till Curtis tried Timed and got the same
BB> results.
Go into you JAM messagebase and find the Allfix_Help.JDT file or what ever
Fastecho is naming the file to. If you view that file and go to the last
message that Harald wrote it will show the incorrect date/time so it is being
stored as it show up in your editor.
I have just run a JAM base utility across all the JAM message areas that Harald
has written to - there are no errors in the index file or the JDT file. So they
are not causing any JAM base corruption.
Graham Print
Wednesday August 04 1999 13:57, Barry Blackford wrote to Graham Print:
BB> So far JAM and Fastecho are common to all instamces I have seen, I
BB> would have said Golded too till Curtis tried Timed and got the same
BB> results.
It's got to be something Harald's echomail processor is either adding that is
not compatable with either Fastecho or the JAM messagebase format, or else
something that should be there being left out.
Kenneth Duke
BS> I'm not suggesting that it is, however so far the only people
BS> reporting a problem are using FastEcho and JAM.
Thats really strange... as I use FE here, and for some strange reason, I've
never noticed anything going on here..
Personally, I think he may have had a CMOS problem, which reset his time/date,
before he posted that message... After posting, and seeing it had the wrong
time and date on it, he fixed CMOS... case closed...
Its no big deal anyways... I don't worry about time/date stuff...
Graham Print
Wednesday August 04 1999 01:32, Bob Seaborn wrote to Curtis Womble:
BS> I suspect it's Harald, Fastecho _and_ JAM right now. A wierd
BS> combination.
But somebody has also reported the same error with Squish messagebase.
One interesting item of note is that I run GMD (Grunged Message Detector)
on every incoming mail packet. GMD is set to reject all and every message whose
date is more than 30 days in the past. It works as it rejected 3 messages this
morning which were more than 30 days old.
BUT it is allowing the messages from Harald with the date incorrect through, in
other words GMD is seeing the date as valid.
Harald Harms
> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
I'm still looking for the problem Curtis. This message will probably have the
wrong date as well...
Harald Harms
Jan van.de.Werken
Hi Harald,
The date in the pkt "01 aug 99 18:06:00"
PATH: 140/30 1 270/101 396/1 28/777 2802/285
FEddy msgbase "01 Jan 99 18:06:00" (the month is changed cos "aug" is not
valid for its tosser)
from the same pkt.
mbfido with JAM msgbase "01-08-1999 18:06:00"
[cut]
HH> No. Everything is fine here. I even checked the outgoing
HH> arcmail. I inspected the PKT files and the dates they contain
HH> are correct. So...I have no idea what's going on.
Maybe.. the "aug" is the problem for some tossers.
Gtx Jan. <j...@greefa.nl>
Vince Coen
Monday August 02 1999, Curtis Womble writes to Harald Harms:
>>>>> 01 Feb 80 at 00:00, Harald Harms writes to Peter Ellis:
>>> At least it's consistant .....
HH>> Yup. Consistency is good ;-)
HH>>>> Yes, something appears to be going wrong here...I'll take a look
HH>>>> at it right away.
>>> Does it show as that when yo are writing it Harald?
>>> Just curious owing to the fact that not everyone is seeing it the
>>> same as I am for some strange reason?
HH>> No. Everything is fine here. I even checked the outgoing arcmail. I
HH>> inspected the PKT files and the dates they contain are correct.
HH>> So...I have no idea what's going on.
CW> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
CW> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
CW> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
I'm showing the date of orig msg as 24-7-99 22:56
S/w is Squish and Golded.
Vince
Tye Hammerle
03 Aug 99 00:31, Bob Seaborn wrote to Bob Wingender:
>>BS> Maybe some inconsistencies in y2k fixes?
>>
>> Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss. Date of 01
>> Feb 1980 and time of 00:00. Using Fastecho 386 and GoldED to read
>> the messages.
BS> That points to FastEcho, possibly. What messagebase format?
BS> JAM?
Harald's messages a coming in with good dates and times here. OS/2 Fmail2
(jam), Golded/2.
Tye
... Fer sell cheep: IBM spel chekker. Wurks grate.
Bob Seaborn
>
>BS> I'm not suggesting that it is, however so far the only people
>BS> reporting a problem are using FastEcho and JAM.
>
> Thats really strange... as I use FE here, and for some strange reason,
> I've never noticed anything going on here..
What messagebase?
>
> Personally, I think he may have had a CMOS problem, which reset his
> time/date,
That would not explain why some see bad dates, and some see good dates
on the same messages.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>
> Wednesday August 04 1999 13:57, Barry Blackford wrote to Graham Print:
>
>BB> So far JAM and Fastecho are common to all instamces I have seen, I
>BB> would have said Golded too till Curtis tried Timed and got the same
>BB> results.
>
> It's got to be something Harald's echomail processor is either adding
> that is not compatable with either Fastecho or the JAM messagebase
> format, or else something that should be there being left out.
Until I hear from others, I'm suspecting that it may be both FastEcho
and JAM that interact with Harald's tosser.
.....Bob
Barry Blackford
04 Aug 99 at 01:04, Bob Seaborn writes to Graham Print:
>>
>>>> Well, I'm reading Harald the same as Barry and Curtiss. Date of 01
>>>> Feb 1980 and time of 00:00. Using Fastecho 386 and GoldED to read
>>>> the messages.
>>
>>
>>BS> That points to FastEcho, possibly. What messagebase format?
>>BS> JAM?
>>
>> You can't just point your finger at Fastecho + JAM. This message
>> Date/Time problem has only just started with messages from Harald. I
BS> So far the only ones reporting problems use both FastEcho and JAM.
BS> I'd like to know if someone uses one or the other - but not both, and
BS> whether Harald's dates are correct or not.
But in your previous message (3 minutes earlier) you ack that this is not the
case:
=== Cut ===
From : Bob Seaborn 1:140/12.1 04 Aug 99 01:01:
To : Ben Hamilton 05 Aug 99 02:06:
Subj : Allfix 5.13
€372€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Noted. :)
=== Cut ===
BS> I have no problem suspecting that something's wrong at Harald's
BS> end, I'm just trying to help pin the cause down.
Fair enuf,
BS> Please don't anybody think I'm slamming any particular
BS> software.
welll, okay :-)
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Bob Seaborn
>
> Wednesday August 04 1999 01:32, Bob Seaborn wrote to Curtis Womble:
>
>
>
>BS> I suspect it's Harald, Fastecho _and_ JAM right now. A wierd
>BS> combination.
>
> But somebody has also reported the same error with Squish messagebase.
I believe that was Ben, and he reported that all was ok.
>
> One interesting item of note is that I run GMD (Grunged Message
> Detector)
> on every incoming mail packet. GMD is set to reject all and every
> message whose date is more than 30 days in the past. It works as it
> rejected 3 messages this morning which were more than 30 days old.
> BUT it is allowing the messages from Harald with the date incorrect
> through, in other words GMD is seeing the date as valid.
Which tells me that the packet is ok, only after FastEcho puts it into a
JAm messsagebase does the problem occur. Wierd!
.....Bob
>
>
> Rgds.
>
> Graham
>
> email: gra...@fareham.com
>
> ... 3Com <-> UK FileGate SuperSite, V34+ & ISDN.
> ---
> * Origin: UK FileGate +44-1329-513929 - No BBS (2:251/23)
Bob Seaborn
>
> But in your previous message (3 minutes earlier) you ack that this is
> not the case:
I did? I interpreted Ben's words to say that he saw no problems on his
system, which used FE and squish, of the timestamps on Harald's messages
>
> === Cut ===
> From : Bob Seaborn 1:140/12.1 04 Aug 99
> 01:01:
> To : Ben Hamilton 05 Aug 99
> 02:06:
> Subj : Allfix 5.13
> €372€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
> €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
>
>>> His messages look fine here, using WaterGate and timEd.
>>
>>BS> JAM?
>>
>> Nope, Squish.
>
> Noted. :)
>
> === Cut ===
>
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>BS> Right now I'm wondering if it's a combination of FastEcho, Jam,
>BS> and whatever Harald's doing. If anyone uses JAM and not FastEcho, I'd
>BS> like to know what they see. Same goes for someone using FastEcho and
>BS> not JAM.
>
> It looks as though JAM has been eliminated now that one system is using
> a Squish message base.
I don't understand why I read Ben's message to say that FE and squish
work properly for him, and others read it to mean that Ben's having problems.
You're the second to say such.
Ben, mind clarifying please?
Anyone else?
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>
>> To support the current theory, I too am using FastEcho and JAM; with
>> timEd/2 as the reader. I also see the Feb 1, 1980 date only on Harald's
>> messages.
>
>BS> Robin, would it be possible for you to make a change to your
>BS> system and use something OTHER than JAM for a test?
>
> Done. This area is now set up as Squish. Now we wait until Harald
> posts something. :-)
Thanks.
HARALD????
.....Bob
Robin Iwamoto
Regards,
Robin
Barry Blackford
04 Aug 99 at 01:07, Bob Seaborn writes to Barry Blackford:
BS> Right now I'm wondering if it's a combination of FastEcho, Jam,
BS> and whatever Harald's doing. If anyone uses JAM and not FastEcho, I'd
BS> like to know what they see. Same goes for someone using FastEcho and
BS> not JAM.
It looks as though JAM has been eliminated now that one system is using a
Squish message base.
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Barry Blackford
04 Aug 99 at 18:41, Graham Print writes to Barry Blackford:
BB>> So far JAM and Fastecho are common to all instamces I have seen, I
BB>> would have said Golded too till Curtis tried Timed and got the same
BB>> results.
GP> Go into you JAM messagebase and find the Allfix_Help.JDT file or what
GP> ever Fastecho is naming the file to. If you view that file and go to the
GP> last message that Harald wrote it will show the incorrect date/time so
GP> it is being stored as it show up in your editor.
My jam base files do not contain any date/time information that's visible to
the naked eye at all Graham.
GP> I have just run a JAM base utility across all the JAM message areas
GP> that Harald has written to - there are no errors in the index file or
GP> the JDT file. So they are not causing any JAM base corruption.
I'm not getting any errors in mail processors here either, I have no utils for
checking them however.
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Barry Blackford
04 Aug 99 at 18:29, Graham Print writes to Barry Blackford:
GP> It's got to be something Harald's echomail processor is either adding
GP> that is not compatable with either Fastecho or the JAM messagebase
GP> format, or else something that should be there being left out.
I thought one person reported the same problem with a Squish message base?
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Bob Seaborn
>
>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>
> have the wrong date as well...
Here it's Wed 4 Aug 99 19:14, under HMB and Gecho.
.....Bob
Ben Hamilton
GP>> this only started when Harald made the change over.
BH> His messages look fine here, using WaterGate and timEd.
BH> Date : Sun Aug 01, 18:06
BH> From : Harald Harms
BH> To : Barry Blackford
BH> Subj : Allfix 5.13
BH> €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
BH> $SGID: 1:140/30 6a91f1d5
BH> $EPLY: 3:774/605 37a2d3cc
BH> $ID: FM 2.2c.mL CS000052
BH> $ID: ALLFIX/2+ 6.00.3 0EF0F39E
BH> [...]
BH> -+-
BH> + Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today! (1:140/30)
BH> $EEN-BY: 130/224 222/10 229/1 600 240/0 244/99 282/2022 2200/120
BH> 2424/10 11 12
BH> $EEN-BY: 2424/98 252 270 1106 1500 2600/1
BH> $ATH: 140/30 140/1 270/101 396/1 2424/10 130/224
GP> That might be so
No "might" to it, Graham, unless you're calling me a liar?
GP> but the same message here isn't.
That's your problem. ;-)
GP> === Begin GOLDED.OUT ===
GP> € I'ntl ALLFIX Support (2:251/23) €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
GP> ALLFIX_HELP € Msg : 2681 of 2690 -2678 +2682
GP> From : Harald Harms 1:140/30 01 Feb
GP> 80 00:00:00 To : Barry Blackford
GP> 02 Aug 99 09:31:37 Subj : Allfix 5.13
GP> €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
GP> €€€€€€€€€€€€ @MSGID: 1:140/30 6a91f1d5
GP> @REPLY: 3:774/605 37a2d3cc
GP> @PID: FM 2.2c.mL CS000052
GP> @TID: ALLFIX/2+ 6.00.3 0EF0F39E
GP> + Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today!
GP> (1:140/30)
GP> $PATH: 140/30 1 270/101 396/1
GP> === End GOLDED.OUT ===
GP> Rgds.
GP> Graham
GP> email: gra...@fareham.com
GP> ... 3Com <-> UK FileGate SuperSite, V34+ & ISDN.
GP> ___
GP> - Origin: UK FileGate +44-1329-513929 - No BBS (2:251/25)
GP> @EEN-BY: 130/224 222/10 229/1 600 240/0 244/99 282/2022 2200/120
GP> 2424/10 11 12
GP> @EEN-BY: 2424/98 252 270 1106 1500 2600/1
GP> @ATH: 251/23 140/1 270/101 396/1 2424/10 130/224
Ben Hamilton
BS> and whatever Harald's doing. If anyone uses JAM and not FastEcho, I'd
BS> like to know what they see. Same goes for someone using FastEcho and
BS> not JAM.
BB> It looks as though JAM has been eliminated now that one system is
BB> using a Squish message base.
You're lost, Barry. The one system (me!) that reported using Squish does not
have the problem.
Ben Hamilton
> not the case:
BS> I did? I interpreted Ben's words to say that he saw no
BS> problems on his system, which used FE and squish, of the timestamps
BS> on Harald's messages
That is correct, except it's WaterGate and not FE.
>>> His messages look fine here, using WaterGate and timEd.
>>
Bob Wingender
Wednesday August 04 1999 01:32, Bob Seaborn wrote to Curtis Womble:
>>
>> Maybe I need to check in on the fastecho area and see.
>> Getting ready to go on vacation so it might be a week
>> before I get to it. But it is pointing to Fastecho.
BS> I suspect it's Harald, Fastecho _and_ JAM right now.
BS> A wierd combination.
Okay, let's go a little further.. Are the dates in my message A-OK?
If it was FastEcho and JAM, then my dates would be wrong..
Shows Thu 05 Aug 99 15:48. Am I right so far?
On this computer, I am using GoldED GEDW32 under Win98SE to write the message.
It will then be picked up by Node 1 computer via the LAN, running DOS 6.2,
FastEcho 386 mode, and tossed to my hub and you.
The original message about the above subject, had Haralds address as 2:282/505.
The dates were wrong on this set of responses from Harald. Then somewhere along
the line, Harald started using 1:140/30 and getting the same kind of mis-date.
So, whoever is common to both addresses and passing Harald's msg's on may be
grunging the date.
But, IMO, I believe there is something amiss on Harald's system. No other users
messages are messed up, especially when they are using Fastecho/JAM
-=[Bob]=-
Internet:
bwing...@earthlink.net [ICQ: 36444869]
... (*) (*) (*) Tribbles with shields up.
Bob Seaborn
>HH> No. Everything is fine here. I even checked the outgoing
>HH> are correct. So...I have no idea what's going on.
>
> Maybe.. the "aug" is the problem for some tossers.
>
I think that you may have found it. Guess FastEcho sees a difference
between "aug" and "Aug", where others may not.
Many thanks for this tidbit.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>> not the case:
>
>BS> I did? I interpreted Ben's words to say that he saw no
>BS> problems on his system, which used FE and squish, of the timestamps
>BS> on Harald's messages
>
> That is correct, except it's WaterGate and not FE.
My mistake, sorry about that.
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
>BS> A wierd combination.
>
> Okay, let's go a little further.. Are the dates in my message A-OK?
Appear to be.
>
> If it was FastEcho and JAM, then my dates would be wrong..
> Shows Thu 05 Aug 99 15:48. Am I right so far?
Yes.
>
> On this computer, I am using GoldED GEDW32 under Win98SE to write the
> message. It will then be picked up by Node 1 computer via the LAN,
> running DOS 6.2, FastEcho 386 mode, and tossed to my hub and you.
>
>
> The original message about the above subject, had Haralds address as
> 2:282/505. The dates were wrong on this set of responses from Harald.
> Then somewhere along the line, Harald started using 1:140/30 and getting
> the same kind of mis-date. So, whoever is common to both addresses and
> passing Harald's msg's on may be grunging the date.
2:282/505 and 1:140/30 are the same system.
And I believe we've found the problem, seems that FastEcho thinks
there's a difference between "aug" and "Aug" (for example), while others like
Gecho, Watergate, etc, don't parse to the point of being case sensitive.
>
> But, IMO, I believe there is something amiss on Harald's system. No
> other users messages are messed up, especially when they are using
> Fastecho/JAM
Well, we haven't heard from anyone yet who's using FastEcho and
something other than JAM. But I think it's moot now. We'll see when Harald
posts his next message.
.....Bob
Scott Brown
BB> using a Squish message base.
BH> You're lost, Barry. The one system (me!) that reported
BH> using Squish does not have the problem.
Make that two Squish's not having problems...
Robin Iwamoto
BB> It looks as though JAM has been eliminated now that one system is
BB> using a Squish message base.
BH> You're lost, Barry. The one system (me!) that reported using
BH> Squish does not have the problem.
Well FWIW, I switched this msgbase from JAM to Squish this morning and Harald's
next message still showed a date of Feb 01 1980 00:00. Looks like it might be
FastEcho specific.
Regards,
Robin
Dave Davidson
04-Aug-99 01:07:03, Bob Seaborn wrote to Barry Blackford
Subject: Allfix 5.13
>> 02 Aug 99 at 15:48, Bob Seaborn writes to Curtis Womble:
>BS>> Then it's got to be something at your end, as I read the same
>BS>> message and it shows "Sun 1 Aug 99 18:06" as the datestamp.
BS> >
>> That's an assumption on your part Bob.
BS> It's about all I can go on at the moment.
BS> Right now I'm wondering if it's a combination of FastEcho, Jam,
BS> and whatever Harald's doing. If anyone uses JAM and not FastEcho,
BS> I'd like to know what they see. Same goes for someone using
BS> FastEcho and not JAM
FWIW, I use JAM with TerMAIL (Intermail/Interecho as Mailer/Tosser) and
all Haralds messages show up here with the correct date. I only keep 500
messages in this echo, and all from Harald in the last 45 days, showed
1999.
Have a GREAT one!
Dave Davidson da...@primary.net
ICQ: 37076334
dad...@aol.com
Barry Blackford
05 Aug 99 at 07:42, Bob Seaborn writes to Barry Blackford:
BS> I don't understand why I read Ben's message to say that FE and
BS> squish work properly for him, and others read it to mean that Ben's
BS> having problems. You're the second to say such.
BS> Ben, mind clarifying please?
For what it's worth I think you are correct and I got it wrong :-%
We really need to hear from anyone who can see the problem, esp in another
message base type or via a different tosser :-)
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Barry Blackford
05 Aug 99 at 17:51, Ben Hamilton writes to Barry Blackford:
BB>> It looks as though JAM has been eliminated now that one system is
BB>> using a Squish message base.
BH> You're lost, Barry. The one system (me!) that reported using Squish
BH> does not have the problem.
Yep, figured as much (when my error was pointed out to me) :-)
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Bob Seaborn
>
> There is only thing different on those 2 msgs is the msgid. Haralds fido
> address is 2:282/505
Actually Harald's Fido address is 1:140/30 plus for now, 2:282/505.
.....Bob
Fred Speir
HH> I'm still looking for the problem Curtis. This message will
HH> probably have the wrong date as well...
The date I have on your message is 4 Aug 99 @19:14.
I am using GEcho, RA 2.50, Hudson MSG base, and reading the message
using Bluewave.
TTYL,
Fred Speir
Logical Positivism
fsp...@sunnet.net
... Tradition: The art of making the same mistake over and over.
Jan van.de.Werken
BS> Right now I'm wondering if it's a combination of FastEcho,
BS> Jam, and
BS> whatever Harald's doing. If anyone uses JAM and not FastEcho, I'd
BS> like to know what they see. Same goes for someone using FastEcho
BS> and not JAM.
BS> I fully agree, let's get to the bottom of it.
With FM 2.32.mL , GEcho 1.11+ and JAM it looks ok.
On| Sun 1 Aug 1999 18:06 (Arrd: Tue 3 Aug 1999 1:14)
By| Harald Harms
MSGID: 1:140/30 6a91f1d5
REPLY: 3:774/605 37a2d3cc
PID: FM 2.2c.mL CS000052
TID: ALLFIX/2+ 6.00.3 0EF0F39E
PATH: 140/30 1 270/101 396/1 28/777
PktDate from Tobias Ernst gives a logentry for the pkt:
! 03 Aug 01:15:22 PKTD Pktdate Rev. 1.0 processing AAB91261.PKT (type: 2+)
! 03 Aug 01:15:22 PKTD Message #010 FTSC date: "01 aug 99 18:06:00" needs fix
(reason 1).
From one msg earlier (of him) the same type of logentry:
! 31 Jul 01:06:19 PKTD Pktdate Rev. 1.0 processing A8A314A2.PKT (type: 2+)
! 31 Jul 01:06:19 PKTD Message #006 FTSC date: "29 jul 99 21:58:00" needs fix
(reason 1).
On| Thu 29 Jul 1999 21:58 (Arrd: Sat 31 Jul 1999 1:05)
By| Harald Harms
MSGID: 2:282/505@Fidonet 6914912e
REPLY: 3:774/605 379d89a1
PID: FM 2.2c.mL CS000052
TID: ALLFIX/2+ 6.00.3 0EF0F39E
PATH: 140/30 1 270/101 396/1 28/777
There is only thing different on those 2 msgs is the msgid. Haralds fido
address is 2:282/505
Gtx Jan.
Joerg Doering
>> Mittwoch, den 04. August 1999 19:14, Harald Harms wrote to Curtis Womble:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^that's what GoldED shows.
HH> Curtis,
>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
HH> I'm still looking for the problem Curtis. This message will probably have
HH> the wrong date as well...
Fastecho, JAM and GoldED - looks correct.
HH> Harald Harms
HH> ---
HH> * Origin: ALLFIX 5.13 has been released! Freq: INFO today! (1:140/30)
Best Regards, Joerg
... Anyone who can walk to the welfare office can walk to work.
Darrell Bourff
>>
>>> Hmmm..Same date same time again. 01 FEB 1980 00:00:00. The only one
>>> coming in here with it like that. I'm using Fastecho/2 to toss and
>>> Fleetstreet to read it with here.
>>
>
>
> Here it's Wed 4 Aug 99 19:14, under HMB and Gecho.
>
>
Same here using IM, Gecho with HMB.
Darrell
Graham Print
Friday August 06 1999 23:13, Barry Blackford wrote to Ben Hamilton:
BB>>> It looks as though JAM has been eliminated now that one system
BB>>> is using a Squish message base.
The Date/Time problem has now been fixed, problem was the month in Harald's
messages was in lower case ie aug - Fastecho required it in upper ie Aug.
Messages from Harald recieved here are now showing the correct date/time.
Rgds.
Graham
email: gra...@fareham.com
Barry Blackford
07 Aug 99 at 07:32, Graham Print writes to Barry Blackford:
GP> The Date/Time problem has now been fixed, problem was the month in
GP> Harald's messages was in lower case ie aug - Fastecho required it in
GP> upper ie Aug. Messages from Harald recieved here are now showing the
GP> correct date/time.
Darn, now what can we talk about :-)
Incidentally, what was creating the "aug" date do you know?
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Bob Seaborn
> Darn, now what can we talk about :-)
> Incidentally, what was creating the "aug" date do you know?
Let's call it a typo and leave it at that. :)
.....Bob
Bob Seaborn
> FWIW, I use JAM with TerMAIL (Intermail/Interecho as Mailer/Tosser) and
> all Haralds messages show up here with the correct date. I only keep 500
> messages in this echo, and all from Harald in the last 45 days, showed
> 1999.
Problem solved, it was a quirk in FE (not a bug, per se).
.....Bob
Harald Harms
> HH> I'm still looking for the problem Curtis. This message will
> HH> probably have the wrong date as well...
> The date I have on your message is 4 Aug 99 @19:14.
> I am using GEcho, RA 2.50, Hudson MSG base, and reading the message
> using Bluewave.
That's good to know. The problem should be fixed. Everyone should be seeing the
correct dates now ;-)
Greetings,
Harald Harms
Barry Blackford
07 Aug 99 at 11:30, Bob Seaborn writes to Barry Blackford:
>> Incidentally, what was creating the "aug" date do you know?
BS> Let's call it a typo and leave it at that. :)
Nudge nudge wink wink .... okay ;-)
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
Barry Blackford
07 Aug 99 at 19:43, Harald Harms writes to Fred Speir:
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HH> That's good to know. The problem should be fixed. Everyone should be
HH> seeing the correct dates now ;-)
Good to see you managed to catch up with us before we exited this centuary
Harold :-)
Best Rgds, Bazz
ba...@glonet.co.nz
John Evans
/Saturday August 07 1999 07:32, Graham Print wrote to Barry Blackford/:
GP> The Date/Time problem has now been fixed, problem was the month in
GP> Harald's messages was in lower case ie aug - Fastecho required it in upper
GP> ie Aug.
My Fastecho didn't seem to be bothered - all messages from Harald which some
people reported as having a grunged date showed the correct date here.
GP> Messages from Harald recieved here are now showing the correct
GP> date/time.
That's the main thing. :-)
Regards, John
Graham Print
Sunday August 08 1999 10:24, John Evans wrote to Graham Print:
JE> My Fastecho didn't seem to be bothered - all messages from Harald
JE> which some people reported as having a grunged date showed the correct
JE> date here.
What message base are you using?
Anyway it's water under the bridge now.