HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlu@cs.umr.edu (Jui-lin Lu)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Update: Again: 386bsd booting problem ..... (Kinda interesting)
Keywords: IDE, 386BSD
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:56:20 GMT



Since I have OPTI chipset with AMI bios made for Magitronic, dated 08/30/92,
and since I'm still waiting for the testing results from Jolitz, I
kept fidlling around my computer to see if I can find some miracle.

Last night, after I low-level re-format (yes, read re-format) my hd,
I tried to boot Tiny disk again.  However, this time I forgot to
insert Tiny disk into drive A.  So, I got "DRIVER NOT READY ERROR",
no big deal.  I inserted Tiny disk and enter.  Wow!  Tiny disk booted
without any error msg.  And this is reproducible.  But if I inserted
disk first (in this case, I didn't get "DRIVER ... ERROR"), it hang
right afetr "changing root device to fd0a".  Well, now I'm kinda
wonder if there is any conflict between my motherboard and IDE drive.

Now, is there anyone out there know where can I get some doc for
my Western Digital's IDE drive (WD9C0344A)?  It has 977 cylinders
with 5 heads.  I bought the whole computer system and did not get
any doc for my HD.  Thanks for your help!

--
***************************************---       Grad. student 		---*
* Obviousness is always the enemy of  *   \     Jui-Lin Lu (Eric)      /   *
* correctness.  -- Bertrand Russell   *   /      jlu@cs.umr.edu        \   *
***************************************---   Univ. of Missouri-Rolla    ---*
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: knight@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Knight of the Living Dead)
Subject: Re: I wonder, did AT&T backstab BSDI?
Summary: Some clarifications on previous post 
Keywords: AT&T speculation lawsuit BSDI
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: World 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:29:18 GMT

> The only problem with this idea is that SYSVr4 (NOT System 5, that was
> another Unix way back) doesn't look like BSD, it still looks like SYSV to
> the normal user, ie you have horrid syntax for the ps utility where you need
> to use a hyphen in front of the arguments and the devices... yuck!
[Stuff Deleted]
> Steve
> --
> Addresses:-
> JANET:-		ucacmsu@uk.ac.ucl or	steve@uk.ac.ox.earth (preferable)
> Internet:-	ucacmsu@ucl.ac.uk or	steve@earth.ox.ac.uk (preferable)

    Being a frequent System 5 (SYSV) user, I can't help but notice that
V = roman numeral 5.  Therefore, I always figured Sys5 and SysV were
interchangable.  If you are thinking of "Revision 7" I believe it is,
which is also Minix level U**X compatibility, I believe thats the outdated
program your referring to.

     There was another message about my "MACH" comment which I'm not in
a position to load in and edit at this time, but it comments that NeXT
paid thier dues to AT&T and thereby were immune.

     If I were attempting to be rude about source code and licenses (which
AT&T is doing) and I were about to grab all the software from the BSD
tape and claim it were my own (which AT&T is doing), if I won I'd point
out to everyone who used the BSD code (I believe that means most, if not
all u**x and several offshoots such as Primos) that the software which
is being licensed by AT&T >DIDN'T< include the "rogue" BSDI software,
which they now own all the rights to, and then they warm up the deathstar
for another round of licensing fees or worse, demanding the BSDI software
be removed from other U**X like software. 

     If anyone thinks AT&T will be buddy buddy with Sun, IBM, or NeXT,
let it be known they backstabbed BSDI -- so they should consider themselves
warned.

     Basically, this could be a war against all **IX software, commercial
or otherwise.  They are literally attacking the weakest link in the
chain of people who develope un*x code, and also possibly the most
influential on other developements.

     On the bright side, BSDI should demand all the "trade secrets"
be explained in court, that way they become public knowledge so that
other people like GNU can produce code which can keep the Freedom
alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
These opinions are mine, don't call my boss or employer or anyone else,
they will just be annoyed and can't give you answers -- Eric Knight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: james@raid.dell.com (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: 386BSD 0.1 bug: npx.c
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:22:09 GMT
Reply-To: james@raid.dell.com (James Van Artsdalen)
Organization: Dell Computer Co

npx.c has a bug that causes it to write to I/O port 0xB1 instead of
0xF1.  Depending on the chipset, this could be bad: some chipsets
don't fully decode the I/O space, and a write to port 0xB1 could wind
up going to the mask register for PIC1, ie, the routine could wind up
masking IRQ 8 through IRQ 15.

It should be noted that a lot of 386 designs ignore port 0xF1.
I would guess that all 486s ignore it.

The second chunk fixes an incorrect comment.

*** npx.c.~1~	Mon Jul 13 04:24:27 1992
--- npx.c	Sun Jul 26 22:14:02 1992
***************
*** 130,136 ****
  		curpcb->pcb_flags |= FP_NEEDSRESTORE;
  	}
  	load_cr0(rcr0() | CR0_EM);	/* start emulating */
! 	outb(0xb1,0);		/* reset processor */
  }
  
  /*
--- 130,136 ----
  		curpcb->pcb_flags |= FP_NEEDSRESTORE;
  	}
  	load_cr0(rcr0() | CR0_EM);	/* start emulating */
! 	outb(0xf1,0);		/* reset coprocessor */
  }
  
  /*
***************
*** 161,167 ****
  	int code;
  static status;
  
! 	outb(0xf0,0);		/* reset processor */
  /*pg("npxintr");*/
  
  	asm ("	fnstsw	%0 " : "=m" (status) : "m" (status) );
--- 161,167 ----
  	int code;
  static status;
  
! 	outb(0xf0,0);		/* clear BUSY# latch */
  /*pg("npxintr");*/
  
  	asm ("	fnstsw	%0 " : "=m" (status) : "m" (status) );
-- 
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen          james@bigtex.cactus.org   "Live Free or Die"
Dell Computer Co    9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759         512-338-8789
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: slynn@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Scott Lawrence Lynn)
Subject: 386BSD doesn't recognize my modem...
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:38:07 GMT

Any help would be greatly appriciated.

Scott Lynn
slynn@cs.uoregon.edu



Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: rjc@nynexst.com (Robert Casazza)
Subject: Re: 386BSD on ALR??
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:16:29 GMT

It does mean EISA, but I have no EISA cards, all ISA.

Paradise VGA, Logitech Bus Mouse.  IDE controller is
built into the motherboard.  Also have a SoundBlaster.
Like I said, all ISA.  I'll pull the SoundBlaster and
bus mouse and see what happens.....

Bob
-- 
Robert Casazza                                rjc@nynexst.com
NYNEX Science & Technology Center
White Plains, NY 10604
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: MSDOS and 386BSD 0.1
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 10:53:53 GMT

I have installed 2 32 Mbyte Partitions of MSDOS and 1 60 Mbyte for 386bsd 0.1

bootany does not work, I had to use shoelace from Minix. Shoelace for linux
should be useable. winiboot does not seem to destroy the disklabel.

For novice, beware that the floppy must be taken off from its drive completely
when 386BSD boots up.

My system is a 386DX 25Mhz with C&T386 chipset.

When I copied from fixit.fs to hard-disk, I cannot execute becuase the access
rights are only rw although umask is 0.
	Is there anyone who knows the reason for that?  

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet
From: wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Help: Routing Problem on 386BSD
Date: 26 Jul 1992 18:07:08 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


Oops, you've spotted another 0.1 oversight. By default, BSD system's
*DON'T* act as routers, primarily for network security reasons (it's
unwise for people to unknowingly have routers that can be exploited ..
enough said on this, ask your site/network manager about details if
this is still obtuse).

To enable, define GATEWAY as an option and recompile. This was to be
(will be in future versions) a compiled in, binary configurable option.
Sorry. This little items are why the release number is pegged at "0" !

Bill.
From: wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: adding another swap partition
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:22:21 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


To add swap space, the device needs to be compiled into the kernel
in advance, even if you don't plan to use it. It reserves space in
it's swap space map for this (so eventually it can interleave them).

Actually, this code is out of date, because the original system used
resource maps with compile time determined sizes. It really does not
need to do this anymore, I'd forgotten about it until you mentioned
the matter. One more thing for the TODO list ...

LO|~?~?~?~?MBill.
From: sxjcb@orca.alaska.edu (Jay C. Beavers)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: NFS Permission Patch
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:01:57 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

Can someone send me the 386BSD 0.1 NFS patch or upload it to
agate.berkeley.edu?  Thanks

______________________________________________________________________________
                                        |
Jay C. Beavers                          |    sxjcb@orca.alaska.edu
University of Alaska Computer Network   |    sxjcb@alaska.bitnet
________________________________________|_____________________________________
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: quanstro@lars.StOlaf.edu (goon)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN USA
	<1992Jul23.204845.28978@ddsw1.mcs.com> <4825@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:29:23

In article <4825@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> ralph@falcon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Ralph Becker-Szendy) writes:
   So the question is: What can I do (as a private individual) to help
   BSDI, and intellectual freedom? Looks pretty bleak, doesn't it. The
   only option is to directly donate money to BSDI, or (equivalent) buy a
   copy of BSDI's Unix which I don't need right now.

What a sec. Perhaps I am being rather dense. But aside from size and
age (two factors which are rather irrevelent) What's the difference
between BSDI and AT&T. They are both trying to __sell__ a rather
expensive operating system. And since _when_ does selling a system
have to do with intellectual freedom. Suppose that BSDI were to
continue with their operating system and suppose that in ten years
somebody else tried to say that they were BSDI UNIX. Don't you think
that BSDI would get a little upset?

   This is not a rhetorical question (if there is something one can do to
   help, I'd like to know), although it really looks like there is
   nothing one can do. Short of tossing Molotov-cocktails into the
   nearest AT&T facility (which again is not suggested and a crime, for
   good reason).

Er, we aren't talking about anything _really_ important here. There
are much more important things to get upset about.
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T shoots self in the foot (was Re: AT&T sues BSDI)
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:08:25 GMT
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado

drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
>I would just like to comment on the public relations angle of this
>move.  Suppose that AT&T wins the suit and BSDI is put out of
>business.  AT&T will have spent thousands if not millions in legal
>fees for what gains?...

sort of a devil's-advocate response...

The gain is that they scare away anyone else who might have ideas of doing
something similar to what BSDI is doing.  They would establish a precedent.

>...It will have pissed-off a large community of
>people who were/are responsible for a great deal of the success of
>***X.  Namely the academic and research communities...

Large is relative.  The academic/research communities are of negligible
size compared to the customer base required for UNIX to succeed in USL's
terms.

Besides, they've already gotten what they want out of research/academia.
The fertilization as people encountered UNIX in school, then carried it out
to the larger world, is done.  AT&T finally failed to avoid picking up some
of the most obvious improvements from BSD, but now they've got them.  What
use do they have for BSD at this point?  It's just an annoying splintering,
an unwanted disturbance in their control over UNIX (R).  Why should they
put up with it?

And if USL doesn't want to put up with it, how should they deal with it?
They're certainly not going to innovate to surpass BSD.  They're not in the
business of innovating in UNIX, and anyway, innovation is nasty, expensive,
unpredictable stuff.  Better to stick to a safe approach like litigation.
Besides, they've got a small army of lawyers and the other side doesn't.
If you're going to fight, pick the battlefield where you can win.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
   ...A clear analysis of any situation is often mistaken for pessimism.
From: greggb@nic.cerf.net (Gregg Brekke)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Port of ed/edit
Keywords: editors
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:48:07 GMT
Organization: CERFnet;  La Jolla, CA

Has anyone ported ed (preferred) or edit for 386bsd.  I use it in a lot
of scripts and don't feel like doing all the substitutions by hand.

If the source is available, where?  Or if you don't have the source
please uuencode it and post it to the newsgroup or mail me directly.

Thanks,
Gregg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Gregg D. Brekke            greggb@fred.org            Ask Me About FrEd!
                FrEdMail - The K-12 link to the InterNet
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Gregg D. Brekke            greggb@fred.org            Ask Me About FrEd!
                FrEdMail - The K-12 link to the InterNet
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: 386BSD on ALR??
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:53:50 GMT

In article <veit.712418327@du9ds3>, veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de (Holger Veit) writes:
|> In <1992Jul29.122935.4015@nynexst.com> rjc@nynexst.com (Robert Casazza) writes:
|> 
|> >I'm having trouble booting the "tiny" distribution diskette.
|> >I've tried the debugging version with no success.  I get
|> >no messages, the system just hangs and I have to power down.
|> >I've tried cold booting with no success.
|> 
|> >Configuration:
|> 
|> >ALR BusinessVEISA 386/33, 8Mb, 200M IDE Conner, Paradise SVGA,
|>              ^^^^^
|> >shadow bios disabled.
|> 
|> >Does anybody have 386BSD running on an ALR??
|> 
|> >Thanks,
|> >Bob
|> >-- 
|> >Robert Casazza                                rjc@nynexst.com
|> >NYNEX Science & Technology Center
|> >White Plains, NY 10604
|> 
|> Does the above really read EISA? If so:
|> 
|> 	N O  S U P P O R T  F O R  E I S A  A N D  M I C R O C H A N N E L
|> 
|> 	A R C H I T E C T U R E S  Y E T !!!
|> 
|> Give it up.

	This is wrong; unless he has non-ISA cards in his EISA bus, it should
function normally.  It is true for microchannel -- anyone hacking this yet?

					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:11:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.193757.3628@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
| 
| That's nice.  They also bought a SysVr3.x license

I believe that was a SysVr2 license...

-- 
---
 Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA
 Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: USL vs. BSDI, and what to do
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:15:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul24.170447.11039@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

>I hate to say this, but Bob has nothing to do with this.  AT&T didn't
>bring the law suit.  USL did.

Tom informs me in email that he is aware that AT&T owns 51% of USL.

Given that he knows this, I find it amazing that he thinks AT&T has
nothing to do with the lawsuit. Ah well, at least he's probably
started a nice toasty flamewar.
From: tmh@doppel.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD: Anyone using gcc-2.x on 0.1?
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:52:02 GMT
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin
In-reply-to: sastdr@torpid.unx.sas.com's message of 29 Jul 92 17:31:10 GMT

In article <Bs5vBy.3Cp@unx.sas.com> sastdr@torpid.unx.sas.com (Thomas David Rivers) writes:

   I'm not sure that v 2.2.x is a pre-requisite for shared libraries; I
   ran for a long time w/ 1.38 & 1.39 on ISC unix and was able to build
   shared libraries fine.  You may want to look there and see how they
   did it...  (The original X11R4 done by Thomas Roell was a shared library
   built with gcc 1.38).

There are (at least) two differnt kinds of shared libs. ISC loads
shared libs at fixed virtual addresses, so the fixup is resolved at
link time (=linking with the stub library). For GCC there is no
difference there between libraries linked in and libraries loaded at
run-time. From the software developers point of view there is a bit of
overhead involved creating the shared libraries via mkshlib. (That is
THE reason why nobody has yet volunteered to do the shared libs for
X11R5--it's a lot of work and not everybody feels like doing that kind
of work for free (not even Thomas Roell anymore)). SunOS and others
use a different kind of "shared library" that is they do run-time
binding of addresses. Since a complete linking pass at run-time would
be quite expensive (and might require multiple passes of the
executable) shared library code is coded differently "position
independent", so that calls within the library don't have to be
recalculated or fixed up again. That would also make them not
shareable, since it would be application dependent. I am not sure on
the details, but I believe run-time linking can be done in a single
pass and only involves fix-ups in the code that uses the library not
the library itsself.

Hope I didn't muddy things further or made an ass of myself :-)
---
Thomas M. Hoberg   | Internet: tmh@first.gmd.de
1000 Berlin 41     |           tmh@cs.tu-berlin.de
Wielandstr. 4      |
Germany            | BITNET:   tmh@tub.bitnet 
+49-30-851-50-21   |

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Penn State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:34:31 GMT


All statemnets and opinions expressed herein are my own and DO NOT reflect
the opinions of my employer.

Just wanted to add my two cents to this discussion.  I am not an attorney,
so do not assume that anything I am about to write is correct.  Also, don't
loose sight of the fact that USL(tm)/AT&T(tm) is a "for profit" corporation.
And that if you do not "vigorously" defend your trademarks you loose your
rights to them.  "Aspirin" was once a Bayer trademark.

While USL/AT&T is appeartently making trademark infringement and unfair
competition the center piece of the suit against BSDI, it seems to me that
the real crux of the matter will be the definition of the term "derived
work" as it relates to a copyright.  In the past I have been told that any
"derived work" is, by law, the sole property of the copyright holder.  If
USL/AT&T can prove in court that the NET-2 code is a "derived work" from
previous copyrighted USL/AT&T code then they will (unfortunately) prevail in
their suit.

If USL/AT&T can convince a court that NET-2 is a "derived work" the
implications are unfathomable.  Would this mean that any code in NET-2 would
now require USL/AT&T licenses?  Would Van Jacobsen's TCP/IP code then
require a license?  What would all of those companies that have built
router's, bridges, or gateways based on Van's code do?  What about Henery
Spencer's regualr exspression routines?  Software development would quickly
come to a halt.

Richard Stallman is right when he says that software copyrights are evil.
This lawsuit is a good example.  If USL/AT&T should prevail then no one who
has been through a computer science curriculum in the last 15 years will be
able to do operating system development.  If USL/AT&T prevails then
programmers and software development houses in any country that is a
signatory to the international copyright treaties could also be required to
tithe to USL/AT&T.

It's time to dig out those "Keep Your Lawyers Off My Computer" buttons and
replace the multi-colored Apple(tm) logo that is the snake's head with the
DeathStar(tm).

Well, I seem to have started ranting, so it must be time to step down
from the soapbox and let the next speaker up.

AT&T is a trademark of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
UNIX is a trademark of UNIX Systems Labratories.
USL is probably a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T.
Apple is a trademark of Apple Computer.
DeathStar is probably a trademark or service mark of George Lucas.


--
Dan Ehrlich - Sr. Systems Programmer - Penn State Computer Science
"Universities should be safe havens where ruthless examination of
 realities will not be distorted by the aim to please or inhibited
 by the risk of displeasure." - Kingman Brewster
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: mitchemt@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Terrence Mitchem)
Subject: using mtools to access dos partitions
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:09:23 GMT

	Can anyone tell me how to set up the devices.c file that comes with
mtools in order to access dos partitions on  hard drive? Which devices in /dev
correspond to the partitions on the disk?  Does it make any difference if I am
using a scsi controller (adaptec 1542b)?  All help is appreciated.
				Thanks,
				   Terry
From: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: SL/IP under 386 BSD 0.1
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:31:06 GMT
Organization: Naval Medical Research & Development Command

In article <sxjcb-240792131845@sxjcb.uacn.alaska.edu> sxjcb@orca.alaska.edu (Jay C. Beavers) writes:
>I would like to set up a SL/IP server or a PPP server on my machine and I
>just
>can't seem to find the information on how to do this.  If I have an
>ethernet
>adaptor configured on ec0 and a 9600 baud modem on /dev/com2, what do I
>need to do to get /dev/com2 to answer and provide SL/IP service?
>
Get the src01 files and extract somewhere (preferably on your 386bsd system
if you have the disk space). Find the sliplogin subdirectory and take a look
at the files there.  It shows you how to set up for auto-slip connection for
known machines by setting sliplogin as the shell in /etc/passwd for those
machines.  In /etc/ttys you need to make sure that getty is on for com2.

These are not step by step instructions but you should be able to figure
it out from the source files and the sliplogin(8) manpage.

Hope this helps.
-- 
LCDR Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil
nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil      | UUCP:   ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30
AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.3     | BITNET:   dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc
WIN/TCP for 3B2  R3.2           | MCI-Mail: 377-2719 or 0003772719@mcimail.com