HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:50:19 GMT
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <Aug.25.21
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan

>>>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:41:55 GMT, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) said:

>I do not think the contract is invalidated in any way by AT&T's
>deregulation.

Barry> That is a nice opinion. What do you base it on?

Commercial versions of the license aside, the educational license
distributed today is not very different in text or spirit than the one
signed by UCB nearly 15 years ago.  The events of deregulation, the
computer biz, creation of USO, creation of USL, sale of USL etc. have
made no major change in UNIX educational licensing practices.  Same
qualifications, same restrictions, etc., minor wording and name
changes.

If the T+C's of the educational licenses being signed today were
substantially *different* than the ones 15 years ago, I would find
your point more cogent.  That would be evidence to me that the old
conditions are now possibly invalid, and fail to have meaning in the
current context.  However, since basically the same license is still
being used today, my personal logic questions why UCB's would be
invalid.

Maybe there's more to it (there always is) - subsequent/superceding
contracts between the parties or other changes in specific laws, but
until I see a specific example, nobody has given me a reason to
believe otherwise.

Why did you think UCB's contract was invalid?

Barry> And isn't UCB a state (govt) school? Hmm, maybe not directly
Barry> relevant, but an interesting parallel to work from (and if you don't
Barry> know what FTS2000 is boy oh boy are you out of your league with
Barry> opinions.)

I have no idea what it is, so you get to educate me and other netters,
if you wish.


Mike
----
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:27:42 GMT
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<Aug.25.21.17.13.1992.1004@athos.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan

>>>>> On 26 Aug 92 01:17:13 GMT, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) said:

Charles> I have a copy of an educational license for 32/V which seems to be
Charles> from the same time period as Berkeley's.  It talks about methods and
Charles> concepts.  (If Berkeley did in fact refuse to sign such a license, it
Charles> could be that theirs is earlier.) 

I believe Terry made the initial statement that UCB refused to sign
the restrictive version of the license, and signed a less restrictive
version.  Does someone know for sure what was signed?  Fact or
factoid?


Mike
----
From: gordoni@chook.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Gordon Irlam)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: gordoni@cs.adelaide.edu.au

From article <Aug.25.21.17.13.1992.1004@athos.rutgers.edu>, by hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick):
> However there's another clause that
> suggests that a broad interpretation of what is covered is going to be
> hard to justify.  It explicitly *requires* us to release any
> modifications we make to the software without restriction on use,
> copying, or further distribution, to the extent that these
> modifications do not include any portion of the LICENSED SOFTWARE.

From a UNIX/32V* Time-Sharing System, Version 1.0 license:


... right to use shall be limited solely to uses for academic and
educational purposes ...

1.01 Uses for "academic and educational purposes" means uses directly
related to teaching and degree-granting programs and uses in research
by students and faculty, provided that the results of such research
are not intended primarily for the benefit of a third person and that
such results are published and are available to the public for no more
than reproduction and shipping charges.  Commercial uses, such as the
development of software for sale or license, and administrative uses
are not permitted.


One other observation, the "LICENSED SOFTWARE" is described as
consisting of "COMPUTER PROGRAMS" and documentation.  And an attached
schedule listing each source and object file supplied constitutes a
lists of the "COMPUTER PROGRAMS" supplied.  That is each file is
considered to be a distinct computer program.

This is important in Australian law at least.  Individual "computer
programs" constitute distinct literary works.  A derivative work is no
less derivative simply because it contains none of the original.

Now, because each file is a distinct computer program it should only
be necessary that each file has been developed from scratch (not the
distribution as a whole) to eliminate the "sticky nature" of
derivation.

Disclaimers: US (New York) law may be different.  This interpretation
is based on my reading of the act in line with a recent Federal Court
decision.


                                   Gordon Irlam
                                   (c/o gordoni@cs.adelaide.edu.au)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Monopolistic Practices
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:30:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.104810.13029@wimsey.bc.ca>, jhenders@wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>     Couldn't a case be made that USL, or ATT originally, used the
> educational licencing to guarantee there could never be a "clean
> room" U*ix? How many CS students could go through their entire 
> time in school and never see U*ix source code? 
>     Being the naive non-lawyer type I am, it would seem some kind of case
> could be built on this being done intentionally. Thoughts?

I have no idea if AT&T's lawyers are that cynical or conniving.  (If I
did know, I probably wouldn't be allowed to say...)  But the idea is
nonsense, for the very simple reason that back when Berkeley signed its
UNIX/32V license, there was no point to that sort of thing.  AT&T
wasn't in the computer or software business, and under existing law and
consent decrees, it couldn't be.  UNIX licenses were practically being
given away, possibly for amounts that didn't even meet AT&T's costs --
according to rumor at the time (and I didn't work here then), AT&T
spent more in legal fees defending their right to (in effect) give away
UNIX than they ever made in license revenues.  The final resolution was
that UNIX was in the same legal category as scrap metal -- a
somewhat-salable byproduct of AT&T's legitimate activities.  That is,
since AT&T developed UNIX for its own internal purposes, distributing
it externally didn't infringe on the 1954 consent decree, and was, in
fact, an act of kindness towards the ratepayers.
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: trier@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier)
Subject: Re: basics of NET/2 and suit?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 00:42:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.122619.27980@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mark@cbfsa.att.com (Mark Horton) writes:
>What exactly is in the BSDI product that's in question?
>Is it all of 4BSD?  Just the TCP/IP code?  What is the
>claimed history of this code?

USL has not been specific.  They claim that some part of the Net/2 release
is derived from their copyrighted and trade-secret-protected works.  They
also claim that BSDI somehow added some USL-proprietary code to BSDI *after*
the Net/2 release.

If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, take a look at the actual
court filings which are archived on uunet.uu.net.

In article <1992Aug25.194204.29276@news.nd.edu> root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math) writes:
>Hey, if the Net runs out of IP addresses, and we all have to use something
>else, won't the TCP/IP code be a less than useful thing if the new Net
>doesn't use something that's derived from TCP/IP.

You're way out in left field here.  TCP/IP is NOT proprietary.  It wasn't
developed by anyone remotely related to AT&T or USL, and USL hasn't claimed
any infringement by the Net/1 release which also included the TCP code.
Therefore, I conclude that it must be something else that is bothering
them -- maybe the file system code?  Maybe the csh code?  Maybe the process
scheduling code?  Maybe nothing specific?  Who knows?

The mere fact that BSD releases had TCP/IP long before AT&T/USG/USL releases
did suggests strongly that BSD did not copy AT&T code in order to write it.
:-)

Mark writes:
>Does anyone have a list of the parts of the system that are included?

"Doctor Math" replies:
>Yesh, the Lawyers. And they're not telling anyone.

You are correct on this count.  The court filings are anything but specific. 
This has evoked much speculation in this newsgroup; many people have concluded
that AT&T is trying to grab very broad rights to anything Unixish.

If I may introduce a new explanation of their vagueness: Perhaps when dealing
with a "trade secret" as widely disseminated as any that might be in the Net/2
code, it may not be in USL's best interest to identify specifically where that
trade secret lies.

In addition, the reason for lack of specifics may be legal maneuvering.  The
longer the warning BSDI and UCB have, the greater the chance that they can
defend themselves in court.  It would seem to be a very simple and logical
strategy to put off specifics until as late as possible.

I don't think either of these possibilities requires viewing USL or its
lawyers as malicious organizations.

-- 
Stephen Trier                      "I am not a lawyer, though I play one
Network Services Engineering        on the net."
CWRU IRIS/INS/Telecom                  Chris Torek, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov
trier@ins.cwru.edu
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: We could blow up USL.
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:12:42 GMT
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<1992Aug24.202349.20503@gateway.novell.com>
	<BZS.92Aug24192342@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug25180650@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<92Aug25.190728edt.187@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan

>>>>> On 25 Aug 92 23:07:57 GMT, tg@cs.toronto.edu (Tom Glinos) said:

Tom> In article <KANDALL.92Aug25180650@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
>Since BSDI is not really a revenue threat, why worry?
>

I really meant BSDI's product, BSD/386, is not a direct revenue
threat.  Same for NET/2.

Tom> Oh really? Imagine every vendor in the world suddenly declared
Tom> that their "UNIX" kernels were not derived from AT&T code.

That is sort of my point about OSF, in particular, about DEC and IBM
who are still making public statements to the effect of being bent on
bringing OSF/1 to market.  If they bring out OSF/1.2 products (some
day), and OSF claims AT&T/USL freedom in the 1.2 release, USL could be
out some money.  But BSDI's product itself is not a direct revenue
threat.  Then, again, maybe OSF/1.x will just die before they get to
that stage.

Addressing your statement that "Imagine every vendor in the world
suddenly declared ...", for the most part, the vendors who license
UNIX System V Release 3, 4, 4.1 and 4.2 and future releases, have deep
product line commitments to System V.  And they know there will be a
4.3, 4.4, etc., they may have on-going support contracts with USL, may
participate as a partner in creating ABI's, and, if they are a major
System V-er, are probably even a shareholder.  In theory, yes, every
vendor could announce AT&T-freedom tomorrow.  In reality, they won't,
since they know they will license a future version, or would
jeopardize some other aspect of the business relationship.

Tom> A loss of revenue from SCO would hurt USL pretty hard. That's why they should worry.

Again, we are saying the same thing, that the BSDI product itself is
not a direct revenue threat, but in the future a *real* USL customer
might try this.  I was thinking DEC and IBM, but SCO is actually a
good example, too.  (Maybe DEC, IBM and SCO are the secret financers
of BSDI's legal expenses.  Sounds like material for alt.conspiracy. 
:-))

SCO does not seem to be running to implement SVR4 as they have been on
3.2 for a while (4 years?), and as for jeopardizing a business
relationship, I guess with the announcement of Destiny, there is
probably not much left to the relationship, so SCO might try to do
this on some next major release.  Anything could happen.


Mike
----
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: geoff@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer)
Subject: Re: What happened with AT&T's copyright clearing procedure
Organization: Software Tool & Die Netnews Research Center
	<1992Aug5.171838.29122@doc.ic.ac.uk> <34595@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:36:22 GMT

John Gilmore:
>Common wisdom at the time was that MDBM had some AT&T in it, and that
>RCS was clean.  AT&T didn't distinguish between them in its response,
>which was a bad sign.

This is truly puzzling.  mdbm contains two tables of numbers, hitab and
hltab, taken byte-for-byte from V7's /usr/src/libdbm/dbm.c.  hitab is
relatively trivial (16 small integers in a fairly obvious sequence), but
hltab is 64 long integers of unclear origin (dbm.c is notably short of
comments).  (Admittedly these tables are not executable code, but the code
depends upon them.)
-- 
Geoff Collyer		world.std.com!geoff, uunet.uu.net!geoff

``Leave the evil grasping to us.'' - A. L. Arms, UNIX licensing, WECo.
From: gerry@seq1.keele.ac.uk (G.D.Pratt)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Re: Hello
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:34:19 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Sep1.231506.11665@fees.vut.edu.au>, by yman2@hermitage.vut.edu.AU (Yman Ng):
> hello there
goodbye from him and it is goodbye from NNTP miniinews situation #6
--
gerry pratt  --  workstation support  --  university of keele
email:  gerry@seq1.keele.ac.uk   *   telephone :  0782 583072
"these opinions are mine, mine, Mine.....ALL MINE I TELL YOU!"
From: harry@scrotem.com (Harry Satchel)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Helmuut
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:34:12 GMT
Organization: Teabagger Inc.
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1

This is a test not a testicle

		Love,
      Harry
From: Maoee.Tsen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Maoee Tsen)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Please Ignore this test.....Re: y
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:47:13 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Aug28.133829.18073@newsgate.sps.mot.com> fmbutt@engage.sps.mot.com (Farooq M. Butt) writes:
>test
>
>-- 
>Standard High-Tech Disclaimer: NOTHING  in the above article has the slightest 
>relationship to reality. If any reality correspondences are found, please 
>notify me IMMEDIATELY. Any threats, abuse or stupidity of any kind is purely 
>UNintentional. These are MY Opinions NOT my employer's.

	Sorry to use your article as a test :-)

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: isc30350@nusunix3.nus.sg (LOW SUET CHENG)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Here we go again...
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:24:49 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Hmm.......have managed to post successfully the last few times.
Guess it's time to spread my wings and try posting elsewhere..
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: who@test.org
Subject: test - abcd
Originator: rkrishna@quest.ece.uc.edu
Organization: test-org
Distribution: oh
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:48:47 GMT

test - abcd

--
xyz




Newsgroups: alt.test
From: esch@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Randy Esch)
Subject: test
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:34:23 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester


Test

---
Randy A. Esch       
AS/400 Development, IBM Rochester
esch@vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: skurucay@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Saban Kurucay)
Subject: tst
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:41:17 GMT

again please
-- 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Saban Kurucay                            " Things go sometimes wrong,
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: kamal@telebit.com
Subject: Kamal's new test
Originator: kamal@napa
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:39:32 GMT


This is Kamal's new test

Newsgroups: alt.test
From: gbush@state.of.confusion (George Bush)
Subject: Oh yeah...
Organization: Of our Mid-East policy??? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:28:25 GMT

	My whole re-election effort is a test of the American   
electorate's extreme credulity and ignorance of simple economics.
If this were a seriously meant re-election campaign, with
appropriate serious chances of winning, the ads you have been
and will be hearing would have been preceded over the last
three and a half years by some sort of sane policy, like actually
following through on my pledge in '88 not to raise taxes.

-- 
Read my lips...no new revenue enhancements!
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: brom@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage)
Subject: Yet another test from me
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:28:07 GMT

The name says it all.

Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bromage       brom@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   : 
Monash University                                : "I think thinking is 
Clayton, Victoria   				 :  so important"
 Australia                                       : 	-Baldrick
 						 :   
     May the source be with you			 :     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	All views expressed are my own except those which conflict with
	my personal opinions.


Newsgroups: alt.test
From: shopov@ee.su.oz.au (Sacha Shopov)
Subject: Re: T-set. -p
Followup-To: alt.test
Reply-To: shopov@magpie (Sacha Shopov)
Organization: Electrical Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:48:07 GMT

>
>Test ?????

yea?
From: cytron@mbcrr.dfci.harvard.edu (Andrew Cytron)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: YAT [Yet another Test]
Date: 1 Sep 1992 15:10:35 GMT
Organization: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcrr.harvard.edu

Testing 1001, 1002, 1003....
From: jgr@ecl.psu.edu (Jim Reisman)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Re: Test
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:48:39 EDT
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University

In article <1992Sep2.214218.19378@novell.com>, jeff@randy.com (Jeff Randy) writes:
> testing...
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: kutty@csi.com (Shivkumar Kutty)
Subject: Testing 1.2.3
Organization: Comdisco Systems Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:46:05 GMT

Test.


Newsgroups: alt.test
From: wied@animal.sps.mot.com (Bill Wied)
Subject: This is a 2nd test!
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:55:20 GMT

This is a 2nd test!
-- 

Bill Wied
wied@sps.mot.com
602-897-4266
Network Applications Group
Semiconductor Products Sector
Motorola Inc.
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla)
Subject: Not a test!
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:35:10 GMT

Of course this is test! Now get back to work!

-- 
Brent Swekla
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: General@general.au (General Access User)
Subject: sdfa
Summary: dsaf
Keywords: sdf
Organization: General Access Machines
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:44:34 GMT

sdaf
From: anvqkv@mluaix.urz.uni-halle.de (Volker Kunert)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Re: test HALLE/SAALE
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:13:20 GMT
Reply-To: kunert@mathematik.uni-halle.dbp.de
Organization: Institut fuer Numerische Mathematik, Universitaet Halle, Germany


-- 
Volker Kunert                       Martin-Luther-Universitaet Halle-Wittenberg
Kunert@Mathematik.Uni-Halle.dbp.de  Institut fuer Numerische Mathematik
NA.Kunert@NA-Net.Ornl.Gov           Weinbergweg 17
\input std/disclaimer.tex           D-O 4050 Halle (Saale),  Germany
From: druker@edstar.ucsb.edu (Steve Druker)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Re: test -- ignore, as usual.
Keywords: Kibo, sig file, test, ignore
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:02:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCSB Graduate School of Education

blah blah blahaaaaklklkl
i
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: reimer@fraser.sfu.ca (Michael Young)
Subject: canard a l'orange
Organization: FirstClass Systems
Distribution: acs
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:37:58 GMT

Ceci est un test.
From: ee3401cb@carina.unm.edu (Student Class Account)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: testinggggggggggggggg
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:41:53 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Just a Test
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: pinel@unixg.ubc.ca (John Pinel)
Subject: Re: test
Keywords: test
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:49:56 GMT

In article <BtwMzE.J3G@cda.mrs.umn.edu> mark@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Mark Van Overbeke) writes:
>>will I get out this time?
>-- 
>Mark Van Overbeke                   Systems Software Programmer
>Computing Services                  BITNET:    Mark@UMNMOR.BITNET   (VMS)
>University of Minnesota, Morris     INTERNET:  Mark@caa.mrs.umn.edu (VMS) 
>Morris, MN   56267           (612) 589-6378    mark@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Ultrix)

Yes you did.  Did I?
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: TEST
Originator: fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca
Keywords: This is a test
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:31:53 GMT


This is a test...
From: jjvbl@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (John V. Blzka)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Re: test2
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:56:48 GMT
Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research, La Habra, CA.

testing again

-- 
===================================================================
John Blyzka                      | jjvbl@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com
"the BLITZ"                      | "give BLOOD, play RUGBY"
 
Xref: sparky alt.test:11143 misc.test:10135
From: test@local
Newsgroups: alt.test,misc.test
Subject: xxxxx local distribution test xxxxx
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:18:22 GMT
Organization: local organisation

ignore
no reply
><
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: esch@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Randy Esch)
Subject: Missing subject header
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:11:00 GMT
Reply-To: esch@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

test new editor.
-- 
Randy A. Esch       
AS/400 Development, IBM Rochester
From: woneill@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu (Bill O'Neill)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Temple ignores students! Film at 11
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:37:38 GMT
Organization: Temple University

Calling all ships at sea...
-- 
                     
	             -------------------------------
Bill O'Neill			_is_ 		woneill@picasso.ocis.temple.edu
Temple University	Broad and Montgomery Aves.	Philadelphia, PA
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: ddurbin@is.rpslmc.edu (Dave Durbin)
Subject: test rpslmc
Reply-To: ddurbin@is.rpslmc.edu
Organization: Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:31:13 GMT

this is a test !!!
From: jjvbl@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (John V. Blzka)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: Re: test
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:54:22 GMT
Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research, La Habra, CA.

this is a test
===================================================================
John Blyzka                      | jjvbl@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com
"the BLITZ"                      | "give BLOOD, play RUGBY"
 
-- 
===================================================================
John Blyzka                      | jjvbl@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com
"the BLITZ"                      | "give BLOOD, play RUGBY"
 
Newsgroups: alt.test
From: baudais@bnr.ca (Michael Baudais)
Subject: test
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.,
Distribution: alt
Date: 4 Sep 92 08:20:47

this is a test