Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[TCPware 5.9-2] FTP Identification

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER

unread,
Feb 14, 2011, 5:26:18 PM2/14/11
to
Is this newsgroup still active (or should I ask PSC support)?

I'm running TCPware V5.9-2 (on OpenVMS Alpha V8.4) and (though I'm even
on FTP_V592P010 patchlevel) the FTP server still identifies itself as
"... FTP-OpenVMS FTPD T5.9-1 (c) 2007 Process Software"

Is this bug not important enough to be fixed or is the TCPware software
unfortunately now used so rarely that it was so far undetected?

--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGST�GER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist
E-mail Pe...@LANGSTOeGER.at
A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

Richard Whalen

unread,
Feb 16, 2011, 9:13:18 AM2/16/11
to
That's an "error" that we are aware of, but too minor to fix with a patch.


"Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER" <pe...@langstoeger.at> wrote in message
news:4d59c82a$1...@news.langstoeger.at...


> Is this newsgroup still active (or should I ask PSC support)?
>
> I'm running TCPware V5.9-2 (on OpenVMS Alpha V8.4) and (though I'm even
> on FTP_V592P010 patchlevel) the FTP server still identifies itself as
> "... FTP-OpenVMS FTPD T5.9-1 (c) 2007 Process Software"
>
> Is this bug not important enough to be fixed or is the TCPware software
> unfortunately now used so rarely that it was so far undetected?
>
> --

> Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTÖGER

Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER

unread,
Feb 16, 2011, 2:51:10 PM2/16/11
to
In article <ijgln5$8e7$1...@news.process.com>, "Richard Whalen" <Wha...@process.com> writes:

Hi Richard

Thanks for responding

>That's an "error" that we are aware of, but too minor to fix with a patch.

Too minor to fix with an extra patch.
That means, it was noticed after last FTP patch came out
(months ago) and will be fixed with the next FTP patch. Hopefully.

I only wonder, why I see version numbers bugs so often (over the years)
I always thought, that version numbers are constants filled into the
compilers (and/or linkers) during the build by the build procedures.

Either it isn't this way (and version numbers are hardcoded in every
part of the product), or the build procedures forgot to rebuild some
parts of the whole product...

Never mind

Richard Whalen

unread,
Feb 18, 2011, 8:22:38 AM2/18/11
to
In most of the places the version numbers are filled in by the linker but
there are a few places where it is part of the program text.


"Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER" <pe...@langstoeger.at> wrote in message
news:4d5c38be$1...@ns.langstoeger.at...

0 new messages