HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Questions about Tracked Robot Vehicles
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:07:57 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <hNk+rwB@engin.umich.edu> feng@srvr1 (Liqiang Feng, ) writes:

}1. If I instruct a tracked vehicle to turn 90 degrees, what kind error 
}in orientation I should expect? say on concrete floor? 5 degrees, 10 degrees 
}or more ? In other words, is dead reckoning still a feasible option for 
}navigation? 

Just a nit:  The correct spelling is "ded reckoning". "Ded" is short for
"deductive." The term usually refers to navigation by reference to known
landmarks, so, yes, it's still a feasible option, but I don't think that
was the question you were asking.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@soldev.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
From: dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu (David C. Troup)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Serial RF links
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:28:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: carroll1.3101
Organization: DCT Technologies, Inc.


	 I'm looking for sources of serial RF devices for my HERO 2000. I would
	 like to eliminate the 'unbilicle' cable.  Ive heard of some that
	 operate around 9600bps at 1000-2000 ft.

	 Please email any info to me, since our news reader is messed up.

	 thanks...


Why stay in college, why go to night school? I'm gonna be different this time
    _______  _______________    |David C. Troup/Surf Rat for Seatrend/Pryde_
    _______)(______   |         |dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu : mail______________ 
_______Technologies Inc.________|414-336-2631_______________________________
From: jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Help mail
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:09:24 GMT
Organization: Unix in NYC

In article <1992Apr6.101246.11238@pellns.alleg.edu> vasquec@alleg.edu (Carlos Vasquez) writes:
>I have just started to get involved with the e-mail methods. I hope that  
>someone can help me find out exactly how to use these methods. That is,  
>how to use the UUCP.  So my question is, how do I use the UUCP and how do  
>I get a hold of e-mail adresses? I hope that someone will respond soon.


It would help if you mentioned what kind of *nix you are using, what there is
in your manual pages that you do not understand, whose address you need, which
computers you already connect to? What "methods" are you talking about? What
have you already tried that has not been successful?

In other words, your questions are just too vague to be able to give you
specific help.
-- 
Jean-Pierre Radley   Unix in NYC   jpr@jpr.com   jpradley!jpr   CIS: 72160,1341
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: uucp over tcp - need help
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:48:02 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr8.174507.8969@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>
>  I have lot the modem on a system I call, but there is a modem pool
>with connectivity. What I need to do is to call in, tell the serial
>selector to give me a serial to tcp concentrator (cisco box or some
>such), tell that to give me a connection... and in 300 bytes of script
>or so I'm connected, get a login prompt, send the login, get a password
>prompt, send that, get a Shers message... and die.

>  I assume that 'g' protocol isn't going to run over that line, because
>of TCP packetizing, or conversion, or whatever. I have HDB at both ends,
>so if someone knows what protocol will run well over this connection I
>will gladly try it (after I dig out which field in Systems get the
>protocol name appended).

It's undoubtably the concentrator's fault.  You can run protocol g
over TCP without trouble.  But is is fairly slow (relative to TCP's
speed) because of the frequent acks that g needs.  However, if you're
running thru a modem somewhere along the way, the inefficiency doesn't
matter because the modem is the bottleneck.  Over pure TCP links
"e" works better.  But not reliably over telephone lines.

Most concentrators try to be helpful - handling XON/XOFF, imposing
parity checking or 7 bit etc. on the serial device.  Worse, many
concentrators have a special magic character that puts them into
command mode so that you can select a system to connect to, drop
the line etc.  "g" needs an absolutely transparent 8-bit path.  TCP
provides that.  But concentrators frequently do not.

You have two alternatives to get "g" working:
	1) have the router configured to be 8 bit, no XON/XOFF, no
	   command characters on the port that has the modem.  This
	   may cause humans dialing in on that line problems.
	2) have uucp attempt to instruct the concentrator to shut
	   up during the Dialers/Devices chat script.  This may
	   not be possible.
Some concentrators can't be told to shut up.  We danced around this
issue once with a friend with a "bridge box".  Took a firmware upgrade
to get everything to function.

This is often more work than it's worth, and many administrators
simply steal one of the modems off the pool and jam it onto a spare
*real* serial port.

Other protocols: if "g" won't go thru, "e" certainly won't.  "f"
*might*, if you can make sure that the link is transparent to 040-177
and control-p - it's okay for XON/XOFF to be enabled.  No other
standard protocol will work.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From: root@cpp.uucp (Rich Bauer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: High Speed Modems Under Xenix
Keywords: Ultra, Xenix
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:01:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cpp.1992Apr17.140138.7296
Organization: Critical Path Project

I need to use Hayes Ultra type modems with Xenix.  Can someone
please help me ?  What driver do I use and how do I configure 
the modems?  SCO tech support will not help because they say
that high speed modems are not supported by Xenix.  One of
their engineers says that the modems will work with Xenix if
some extensive hacking is done on the dialers. 

Has anyone done this?  Please help.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Rich Bauer - Critical Path Project Inc.                 |
| UUCP...!dsinc!jabber!phlpa!cpp!rich  or rich@cpp.UUCP   |
----------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: mike@swsrv1.cirr.com (Mike Haddon)
Subject: uucp bombing (HELP!!!)
Organization: Software Services; Garland, Tx
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:23:04 GMT


I have just changed motherboards on my system and I have experienced
a problem transfering files/mail from a remote system to mine. This
problem is not with all systems but I have verified that no one else
is having this problem. I can receive files/mail as long as the remote
system calls in but cannot receive files/mail if my system dials out.

I have tried everything I can think of but to no avail. I would appreciate
any suggestions. I have included the configuration of my Intel 9600EX
modem. This is the same configuration I had before the hardware change
but I cannot beleive that a change in motherboards would cause this.

The uucico log file in /usr/spool/uucp/.Log/uucico/[system name]
shows that there is an input error after the file request is sent
but no other verbose help is supplied. I have another Everex 2400E
that can transfer files without any problems.


ACTIVE PROFILE:
B1 E1 L2 M1 T Q0 V1 X4 Y0 &C1 &D2 &G0 &J0 &L0 &P0 &Q0 &R0 &S1 &X0 &Y0
\A3 %A013 \C0 %C1 %E1 \G1 \J1 \K5 \N3 \Q3 \T00 \V2 \X0 -J1 "H3 "S0 "O250
S00:001 S01:000 S02:043 S03:013 S04:010 S05:008 S06:002 S07:060 
S08:002 S09:006 S10:014 S11:070 S12:050 S18:000 S25:005 S26:001 

STORED PROFILE 0:
B1 E1 L2 M1 T Q0 V1 X4 Y0 &C1 &D2 &G0 &J0 &L0 &P0 &Q0 &R0 &S1 &X0
\A3 %A013 \C0 %C1 %E1 \G1 \J1 \K5 \N3 \Q3 \T00 \V2 \X0 -J1 "H3 "S0
S00:001 S07:060 S11:070 S18:000 S23:027 S25:005 S26:001 S27:064 

STORED PROFILE 1:
B1 E1 L2 M1 T Q0 V1 X4 Y0 &C1 &D2 &G0 &J0 &L0 &P0 &Q0 &R0 &S1 &X0
\A3 %A013 \C0 %C1 %E1 \G0 \J0 \K5 \N3 \Q3 \T00 \V2 \X0 -J1 "H3 "S0
S00:001 S07:060 S11:070 S18:000 S23:027 S25:005 S26:001 S27:064 


somebody please help!!


-- 
******************************************************************************
*                      |                        |                            *
* Mike Haddon          | 6717 Woodsmoke Way     | Fort Worth, Tx.  76137     *
* MTL Custom Services  | mike@swsrv1.cirr.com   | ...!void!swsrv1!mtlsrv!mh  *
From: monty%roscom@think.com (Monty Solomon)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: weird uuxqt message
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:32:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: proponen.1992Apr14.043226.2487
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@think.com>
Organization: Proponent

I received the following email error message from uuxqt on a remote system.

	uuxqt cmd (rmail) status (4 [USAGE])

What does it mean?

Thanks.

Monty
-- 
# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
# monty%roscom@think.com
From: thomas@plxsun (Thomas Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Unreachable systems
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:47:19 GMT
Organization: PLEXUS Software, a division of REI

denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) writes:
: For about 2 weeks my paths file rebuild has been reporting about 20 or so
: "you can't get there from here" systems, mostly ".jp" ones. This happened
: about 2-3 months ago too, and it cleared itself. Is anyone else having this
: problem? 

I remember that occurance a couple of month ago, but our current maps report 
only two unreachable sites. You may want to check for any map files that haven't
been updated within the last 6 weeks.

Thomas

P.S.: pathalias runs every night here.


-- 
Thomas Leibold   +1-408-9824888   thomas@plx.com   {uupsi,sun}!plx!thomas
PLEXUS Software, 5200 Great America Parkway, Suite #200, Santa Clara CA 95054
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson)
Subject: Re: UUCICO is system intensive
Organization: Cray Research Superservers Inc., San Diego CA, USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:59:16 GMT

In article <SPACE.92Apr10131844@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org> space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau) writes:
>You'd be better off switching to "f" protocol and disabling PEP
>protocol spoofing. I get 1200-1400cps with spoofed "g" and
>1400-1600cps with unspoofed "f". Since PEP is supposed to be reliable,
>you don't need all those checksums and sequence numbers anyway. I
>haven't experienced any problems in the 2 months I've been running "f"
>protocol now.

Ah, another person silly enough to think 'f' is good.

Tell me, what are you transferring over this link?

'f' protocol quotes all control characters and all characters with the
high bit set.  It ends up expanding binary data by rediculous amounts
and eats any throughput gain.  Compression will gain some but not even
close to all of this nastyness.

If you are sending compressed news, you can use Bnews encode or Cnews
bencode to make the data 7 bit encoded so it doesn't get quoted so much
and this does save you but still, you lose overall throughput.  If
you're getting 1200-1400 with UUCP-g, on real binary data you actually
do worse with 'f' and bencode, even if UUCP reports higher rates.  Do
you actually want to get the data across faster or do you just want to
have artifically inflated rates in your log files to impress your
friends?

'f' is good for the purpose it was intended for, 7-bit lines that use
control characters for line control, such as X.25 PAD.

Of course, if you don't mind a bit of a performance hit in order to
lower the load on your CPU, it may be a reasonable trade-off but don't
be fooled into thinking that you can move more data in less time with
'f'.  Unless it's already 7-bit data and you are using compression, you
won't be able to go faster than 'g' with spoofing.

Also, 'f' only does a checksum at the end of each file.  This means
that if there is an error, you have to resend the entire file.  This
can get real expensive.  Errors don't just have to be between modems.
They can also be between the modem and the computer.  RS232 cannot be
assumed to be a reliable link, even with EIA flow control.  UUCP-g can
resend only a packet on an error, which is much cheaper.

--Bill Davidson
From: bcaesar@ess.harris.com (Bob Caesar)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: UUCP novice, need setup help
Keywords: sendmail.cf, uucp
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:36:25 GMT
Reply-To: bcaesar@ess.harris.com
Organization: Harris (Government Aerospace Systems)

I've got a modem attached to my Sparc2 and I'd like to use
it to send mail to other uucp sites.  I added  the following 
to the /etc/sendmail file:

   # local UUCP connections -- not forwarded to mailhost
   CV testmach

But when I try to email to testmach\!someguy , the messages
bounces and the bounced message contains:

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
   bad system name: testmach
   uux failed ( 68 )
   550 <testmach!someguy>... Host unknown

The modem never tries to dial up testmach.  Is there something
else that needs to be changed?

If it makes any difference,

   uucp somefile testmach\!/var/spool/uucpublic/somefile

works fine; the modem dials the other machine and sends the file.
Any help is much appreciated

Bob
--
Robert J. Caesar Jr.
<bcaesar@comanche.ess.harris.com>        VLSI Technology, Inc.
PHONE: (407) 727-6398   [727-NEXT]       2200 Park Central North, Suite 600
PHONE: (305) 971-0404                    Pompano Beach, Florida  33064
From: shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org (Shawn P. Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCICO is system intensive
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:27:27 GMT
Organization: Litfal +1 612 929 5181

km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) writes:
> 1) Could UUCICO be better optimized? The alarms being set/unset for
> each read are several seconds long. At PEP modem speeds, 10's of
> packets should be sent a second. Setting and unsetting a 4 second alarm
> once (or twice) a packet seems too expensive.

It'd be nice if more (or any) people could support larger packets and/or
windows.  That'd certainly increase throughput.

> I would think the thing
> to do is use the System V termio VMIN/VTIME for short timeouts, with a
> longer no-activity "alarm" not set per packet. (VMIN/VTIME does not
> handle really handle the no activity case).

Another idea would be to devote a process to receiving data for you
and issuing a signal to wake you up from a time-out sleep() when it
received what you were waiting for (a control packet, data packet,
etc.).

With OS-9000 (shhh, just pretend it's okay), there's a signal you can
set for incoming data on a file/device "path".  The approach I've used
there is to handle the signal by setting a flag, and then I sleep.
When the signal handler finishes, it decrements the mask counter and
ends the sleep, so if I receive data, the sleep automatically ends, and
I can check my flag and see if I timed out.  That has reasonable
throughput.

> 3) Is the break up of the 6 byte read into 1+5 normal? It always reads
> the \10 by itself.

That's so spurious data can be ignored.  Since all packets begin with
a \10, it's a convenient way of flushing garbage without ending up
having to NAK the real packet.
--
Shawn P. Stanley   1:282/116  +1 612 929 5181 voice
shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org  +1 612 929 5266 data
From: davidsen@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: How do you set S-registers for individual UUCP sites under Ultrix
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Apr2.192443.23200@osf.org>, omar@osf.org (Mark Marino) writes:
|  I'm looking for an easy way to set S-registers for individual UUCP sites under
|  Ultrix UUCP.  In other words, for one site I want to set S50=255 but for other
|  sites I want S50=0.  They all use the same modem.  
|  
|  L.sys entries all have:
|   
|  ACU 19200 for the L-devices pointer
|  
|  The L-devices file contains: 
|  
|  ACU ttyd0 ttyd0 19200 telebit
   ^^^                   ^^^^^^^
You need a new device and dialer script setup. I have PEP24 and PEP96
(in both Devices and Dialers). Now, with Ultrix you have one of the
oldest and mungiest versions of uucp on earth, so you have to fake it.
You put DIR as the device, and embed all the modem commands in the
dialing script.

This is ugly as sin, but it really does work.

|  Any easy way to issue modem commands for specific sites would be greatly
|  appreciated. 

Sorry, that's a viable way, but it isn't easy.

|  | The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson               |	

Really? I've seen it elsewhere as "Eternal vigilance is the price of
freedom," and I thought that was correct.
-- 
	- bill davidsen (davidsen@crd.ge.com)
	GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
By analysis of usenet source, the hardest part of C to use is the comment
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: janus@magnusson.uucp (Janus International Inc.)
Subject: Mail bouncing, need help
Organization: Salt Lake City NeXT Users Group
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:15:26 GMT

My machine is a standalone NeXTstation that polls an SCO UNIX site about  
every hour. I am receiving Usenet and e-mail through about two other  
machines from uunet.

I have received no messages addressed to janus@magnusson.uucp, though I  
have received mail from kris@neb.uucp that is forwarded to the local NeXT  
at home.

Some have sent mail to janus@magnusson.uucp and, though they did not  
document the replies, believe they have received bounce messages from the  
machine that is polling uunet, news.mentorg.com.

My question is: would someone please send mail to janus@magnusson.uucp and  
post the bounce messages to this group so that we can track down the  
problem? Any assistance would be highly valued.

Kris
janus@magnusson.uucp (not working)
kris@neb.uucp (working)
Xref: sparky comp.mail.uucp:1159 alt.sources.d:559
From: pat@ub.com (Patrick Mulrooney)
Subject: Re: UUCP <==> Microsoft Main : Question ???????
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:30:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.113022.26105@analsyn.gts.org>, anton@analsyn.gts.org (Anton J Aylward) writes:
> 
> Is there a COMMERCIAL and supported package that allows 
> Microsoft Mail for DOS, or even CC:Mail, to talk to UNIX (or other)
> machines via something like UUCP?
> 

cc:Mail does have a SMTP gateway.  We have it installed and it works.

                  -pat       pat@ub.com
From: wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Why this funny rmail statement in this uucp control file?
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:21:33 GMT
Organization: BSO/LT, Baarn, The Netherlands

U wierda ltb
# return status on failure
Z
# use sh to execute
e
# return address for status or input return
R wierda
# job id for status reporting
J rna-nlNddfb
F D.ltbede54eb
I D.ltbede54eb
C rmail gerben@ltb.bso.nl

This mail was sent from system ltb user wierda (name wierda@ltb.bso.nl).
I was CC-ed to gerben@rna.indiv.nluug.nl or rna-nl!gerben, a direct UUCP link
from ltb(.bso.nl).

Mail headers are fine. CC, To etc.

But the rmail line in the CC-ed mail control files look like above when cc-ed
and correct when sending (not cc-ing).

Note user gerben@ltb.bso.nl does not exist....

Using sendmail 5.65b
-- 
wierda@ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) || I speak for myself and not for my employer.
(+31) 2154 84415/(+31) 35 833539  || Support the League for Programming Freedom!
	"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."
	Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland".
From: bruce@blilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Do I need a UUCP map entry?
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:50:12 GMT
Organization: Bruce Lilly

In article <169@visicom.com> makey@VisiCom.COM (Jeff Makey) wrote:
>Is it really possible to keep one's UUCP address from escaping without
>uncommon cooperation from the upstream site?  I put only FQDNs in the
>RFC 822 headers of outgoing mail, but that pesky From_ line still
>looks something like this:
>
> From VisiCom.COM!makey  Wed Apr  1 14:54:46 1992 remote from visicom
>
>which my upstream site (running rmail & sendmail, of course, as am I)
>rewrites as "visicom!VisiCom.COM!makey" and puts this into the
>Return-Path (or equivalent) header.  What's a postmaster to do?

I'd reconfigure sendmail.cf to use a From line more like:

> From makey  Wed Apr  1 14:54:46 1992 remote from visicom.com

which would likely be rewritten as "visicom.com!makey" which is
far all practical purposes equivalent to "makey@visicom.com".

Alternatively, if you and your neighbor are running UIUC/IDA
sendmail, you could use bsmtp instead of rmail and avoid those
``ugly'' UUCP From lines.
-- 
	Bruce Lilly		blilly!bruce@Broadcast.Sony.COM
					...uunet!sonyusa!sonyd1!blilly!bruce
From: Richard.Gullo@f132.n324.z1.fidonet.org (Richard Gullo)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: traffic
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:59:02 GMT


 I am receiving very few messages in the following newsgroups and am looking
for some feedback as to if there's a problem or this is normal.
Any feedback would be appreciated.

                                Regards.....R.G.

 COMP.BINARIES.ATARI.ST
 COMP.SOURCES.ATARI.ST
 COMP.SYS.ATARI.ST
 COMP.SYS.ATARI.ST.TECH
 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
 alt.fractals
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCICO is system intensive
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:52:26 GMT

shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org (Shawn P. Stanley) writes:

>It'd be nice if more (or any) people could support larger packets and/or
>windows.  That'd certainly increase throughput.

Well, certainly some people support larger packets and windows.  It
would be nice if more did.

>Another idea would be to devote a process to receiving data for you
>and issuing a signal to wake you up from a time-out sleep() when it
>received what you were waiting for (a control packet, data packet,
>etc.).

If you did this I think you'd have to completely decouple the receive
path from the send path, as MHSnet does.  Otherwise you'd have to
waste time transferring the data from the receiving process to the
real process.

In any case, I don't see the real difference between doing a sleep
compared to doing a read with a timeout.  Either way you have to set
up a SIGALRM signal and then do a system call (pause in one case, read
in the other).

>> 3) Is the break up of the 6 byte read into 1+5 normal? It always reads
>> the \10 by itself.

>That's so spurious data can be ignored.  Since all packets begin with
>a \10, it's a convenient way of flushing garbage without ending up
>having to NAK the real packet.

That's not a reason to break up the read.  It's better to always read
as much data as you can in a single system call, rather than make two
system calls.  Once you've got the data it's easy enough to look
through the buffer for the \x10.
-- 
Ian Taylor                     ian@airs.com                    uunet!airs!ian
First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message:
``Do you make a grievance of weighing so many pounds only, instead of three
  hundred?  Then why fret about living so many years only, instead of more?''
From: shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org (Shawn P. Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCICO is system intensive
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:33:29 GMT
Organization: Litfal +1 612 929 5181

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
> That's not a reason to break up the read.  It's better to always read
> as much data as you can in a single system call, rather than make two
> system calls.  Once you've got the data it's easy enough to look
> through the buffer for the \x10.

You've found this to be true in practice, I assume.  How much better
did it turn out to be?
--
Shawn P. Stanley   1:282/116  +1 612 929 5181 voice
shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org  +1 612 929 5266 data
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp