HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dean.Roth <Dean.Roth@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: PPI 14.4 MAJOR PROBLEMS _ NEED HELP _ CELERITY.
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:29:04 GMT

In <94coRB1w164w@admiral.uucp> spyder@admiral.uucp (Eric) writes:

>I have a PPI modem, and I just received my new 1.15M ROM Chip, and I 
>installed a 16550AFN UART, thinking all my problems were solved.  It
>turns out, none of them were.  I still can't connect to half the 
>high-speed boards in the area, and still can't connect to any 2400 boards
>This is really pissing me off....I'm using the AT&F1 setting, and when

Why are you so quick to blame the modem?

Do you know if any other V.32bis modem will work from the same 
line you have the PPI on?

Have you tried configuring the modem to start speed negotiation
at 9600 or 4800 or 2400 rather than 14400? 

The problem may NOT be the modem, but your local telephone company's
equipment. I've run into this problem several times. Not all
telephone switches will reliably handle high speed modems. Some
telco equipment will roll over and die on V.32bis tones. I once
demonstrated to one telco how its equipment was dying on PEP tones,
which it confirmed, but did not fix.

Dean
From: tnixon@hayes.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 14400bps throuhput
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:49:37 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <OD.6badnetOA92-901-302p0_50e1d54b@piraya.bad.se>,
Roger_Nordin@atb.bbs.bad.se (Roger Nordin) writes: 

>> Excuse me, but v.42 allows the
>> modems to run essentially synchronously between each other.  In stripping
>> start/stop bits, you no longer need to send them.
> 
> Not quite. MNP4 and V.42 extends the data frame to 64 bits, thus sending up to 
> 8 bytes in a row. This data frame is however surrounded with a start and a 
> stop bit. 64 useful bits in 66 transmitted bits is of course a =much= lower 
> overhead than 8 useful bits in 10 (RS-232).

Sorry, but this is incorrect as well.  MNP3 and LAPM strip the start 
and stop bits entirely; they don't put them back on groups of eight 
bytes.  What they _do_ do is package the data as HDLC frames: an 
opening flag and three-byte header, the data, and then a frame check 
sequence and closing flag.  In MNP3, the maximum number of data 
bytes per frame is 64; in MNP4, it is 256.  In LAPM, the maximum 
number of data bytes per frame is negotiated between the modems; it 
is 128 by default, but the limit can be negotiated to any value from 
1 to 4096 bytes (Hayes modems allow the maximum to be negotiated to 
power-of-two values from 16 to 512 bytes).

Where did you get the information that MNP and LAPM frame 64 bits 
with a start and stop bit?  It's quite far removed from reality.

-- 
Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   +1-404-840-9200  Telex 401243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     +1-404-446-6336  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                tnixon@hayes.com
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: TIES and T. Nixon
Date: 24 Sep 92 10:09:49 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh Software Products

In article <q6lflds@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
:My gut reaction was to go find a hammer and "educate" all of the Hayes
:modems in reach.  I found myself unthinkingly swearing to put a stop to
:some ISDN business with Hayes.  (I think have regained control, but it
:was close.)  Press stuff should never offend customers, potential
:customers, or friends of customers, and that stuff was offensive.

Tony can tell Hayes management that my company will *not* be buying
Hayes in future for just this reason.  Sorry, but using lawsuits
to stifle fair competition isn't on.

G
--
From: epang@fraser.sfu.ca (Eugene Pang)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 40% Discount of ZyXELs
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:51:47 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

graeme@hart.actrix.gen.nz (Graeme Hart) writes:

>Zero.One@p6.f356.n103.z1.fidonet.org once wrote....
>>To all who is interested, you can recieve a 40% discount of the purchase of a 
>>ZyXEL Modem if you submit an ANSI entry and fill out our Contest Form.  You
>>can get the rules from us at 714-693-0762 or 1:202/701.  The file is
>>Contest.Zip

>I've just dialled up, and couldn't find the file.  Could you please
>post a copy here, or e-mail it to me.

The file is available in the Bulletins section on their BBS, for reading it
online.  (I think it was #5.)  Since I don't have it with me, I'll summarize:

Contest deadline is Oct 12.  Contest consists of designing an ANSI log in
screen for BBS use that promotes the ZyXEL modem line.  All participants
qualify for the discount during the contest period.  Limit of one modem of any
model per participant, subject to availability.  Top two prizes are cash +
modem, third prize is just a modem.  Discount applies to "list" price (whatever
that happens to be at the moment).
From: tnixon@hayes.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: FAQ -- define v.32, v.42, etc. 
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:34:17 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct3.170430.6528@telebit.com>, bair@telebit.com
(Scott Bair) writes: 

>>see above --- V.42bis requires V.42 operating in LAPM (Link Access
>>Procedure for Modems) mode, but that's it.  if you have a LAPM link,
>>you can run V.42bis.
> 
> Not true. V.42bis doesn't require error correction. It is a separate module.

THAT'S not true.  Adaptive data compression schemes absolutely DO 
require error correction.  Even a single bit error will cause the 
encoder and decoder to become out of sync, resulting in incorrect 
decompression of the data.

V.42bis is, at the present time, only standardized for use over V.42 
LAPM protocol.  It WILL work over any error correcting protocol that 
can handle the negotiation of V.42bis parameters.  We could use it 
over X.25, V.120, or a number of other protocols, if we either 
agreed on parameters in advance or added parameter negotiation to 
these protocols.  But you certainly can't run V.42bis with no error 
control at all.

-- 
Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   +1-404-840-9200  Telex 401243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     +1-404-446-6336  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                tnixon@hayes.com
From: colonius@dino.dinoco.de (Stephan Muhs)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ZyXEL's -- do they ever work?
Distribution: world
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:33:57 CET
Organization: Private

In article <dirkst.718051437@messua> dirkst@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Dirk Steinberg) writes:
>Hi there,
>
>has anyone ever seen a real *working* ZyXEL 1496E? I bought one a
>week ago from a dealer (supposedly at distibutor (?!?)) in Bonn.

I allready answered part of this post in separate message, so I will
only refer to the topics here which wer not touched in my previous
post.

There is no officical Zyxel distributor in Bonn, so this guy is just
a dealer.

>It didn't work. After half an hour, it just crashed with the LEDs
>in a random state. Power cycling (the only way to reset) didn't
>help. I took it back and they exchanged the power supply.

I mentioned that this is the typical warm-up problem, which accounts
for about half of the 2% Zyxel failure rate. Exchanging the power
supply in this case is about as effective as voodoo incantations.

>Second try: it worked for half an hour again, but then ...

Sure, just because the problem was never fixed in the first place.

>Now they swapped the modem for a new one (supposedly, at least).
>This was said to be the last one they had, new modems coming in
>4 weeks...
>
>Everything is fine now: the self test works, and I can configure the
>modem from my computer, store tel. no. and such.
>If now it only could dial........
>It cannot pick up the phone and dial a number, just says NO DIALTONE
>and the speaker remains silent.
>

Since you are in Germany: did you happen to use the TAE to RJ-11 cable
that is supplied with a ZZF-approved Siemens telephone (or other
ZZF-approved brand)? If so, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Although the cable looks like a standard RJ-11 cable, it is not the real
thing. Standard RJ-11 connectors have line A and line B on the inner
pins, Siemens ZZF-telephones on the OUTER pins. If you now use the
RJ-11 cable supplied with your Zyxel to connect your telephone to the
modem, the phone will work just fine, since the Zyxel connects through
all four wires. But the modem will report "NO DIALTONE", because there
is no line on pins 2 and 3 of the RJ-11.


--
stephan muhs      colonius@dino.dinoco.de
wilhelmstr. 51    ...!unido!easix!dino!colonius
5000 koeln 60     Genie: s.muhs
germany           voice: +49 221 7393484
From: 1012breuckma@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 14400bps throuhput
Date: 3 Oct 1992 04:12:10 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 1012breuckma@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Oct2.145727.6837@fwi.uva.nl>,
 maarten@fwi.uva.nl (Maarten Carels) writes:
>hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w) writes:
>
>
>When downloading files that are already compressed, V42bis compression will
>not gain you anything. All 'air' in your files has already pushed out.

Well now, that depends on how well they were orignally compressed doesn't
it.   With a V.32bis connection I can download ZIP files using Ymodem-G
protocol and reach about 1650 cps.  The base rate is 1440 so obviously
the compression is working.
 
>1420 bytes / second is not that bad on a 14400 baud line (which transfers
>at most 1440 bytes per second!)

No, the 1440 maximum is the rate of the COMPRESSED data.  The rate of the 
REAL data can be more (as shown above), and in fact is LOTS more for text
or .EXE files that are not precompressed.
>
>--maarten
 --gary
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: rlosey@sdf.lonestar.org (Richard Losey)
Subject: Re: Supra New ROM (ordering info)
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:38:55 GMT

In article <muysvasovic-290992170406@17.67.4.114> muysvasovic@applelink.apple.com (Jean-Denis Muys-Vasovic) writes:
>In article <blaby.717741060@sfu.ca>, blaby@fraser.sfu.ca (John Edward
>Blaby) wrote:
>> 
>> Hmm..I notice that the latest upgrade still does not include the
>> promised mnp10. Has anyone heard anything about the lately?
>> 
>> If I am not mistaken, MNP10 is mentioned on the box the modem came in!
>> 
>
>ditto for V23!!

Don't know about the V23, but Supra has stated that Rockwall promised that the
chip would support MNP-10 and it is Rockwall that has not put it in.
Furthermore, according to Supra, Rockwall has said that some
"still-there-but-unused" features of the current modem will have to be deleted
to make room for the MNP-10 capabilities.

RWL

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: USR DS v.32bis 10-15% faster thoughput over the Worldblazer
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:38:33 GMT

I have done a number of throughput tests using both USRs and
Worldblazers.

The setup:

ftp over PPP over v.32bis/v.42bis between two Sun ELCs. One end had a
USR v.32bis on ttya. The other had a USR DS or a Worldblazer on a
Central Data TS-1008 SCSI serial box. DTE speed for the USRs was
38.4 kbps, 57.6 kbps on the WB.

I found no duplicatable, significant difference in throughput as
measured by ftp's throughput statement. For compressed files it
was 1.6 K/s, for uncompressed sparc binaries it was about
2 K/s, text files were about 3 K/s and pointless files got 3.7 K/s.

My uucp results have, by contrast, been awful. I blame uucp-g
for this, and am fully convinced that it is time to throw g into
the shitter. If you're getting 1.3 kbps instead of 1.6 kbps and are
moving 20 MB of news per day, it's nearly an hour more connect time.

I run UUCP spoofing on the WB with v.32bis/MNP4 and I _STILL_ get
1.3-1.4 kbps. That's just the way g is. 25% of your throughput is a
terrible thing to waste.

-- 
Nick Sayer <mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us> | "I'd like a brigade tie."
N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM     | "Certainly sir. Fire or ambulance?"
37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W             | 
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'   |     -- customer & Mr. Spooner
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.dcom.modems
From: "Marc E. Gauthier" <megauthi@guest0.iit.nrc.ca>
Subject: Re: ZyXEL U1496E+
Organization: SEL, IIT, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:49:05 GMT

In article <4672.2709921024@brewhq.swb.de> CB@brewhq.swb.de (Christian Balzer) writes:
>In article <3833@randvax.rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
>>
>[V.42bis is good 4 u]
[...]
>But the point being made by Andreas was, that if the current line of ZyXEL
>modems wouldn't be upgradeable to V.fast PLUS V.42bis but just to V.fast
>w/o compression he'd prefere an upgrade path even w/o V.42bis.

Yes, even if it means yet another configuration bit, so that the modem
would only negotiate V.fast w/o V.42bis if you set that bit.  This way,
those who might be hampered by such a configuration would not get it
(so perhaps the default state for that bit should be off).

Do any ZyXEL people read this newsgroup?  Is there any email address
to which we can send suggestions like this?

-Marc
From: hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: 14400bps throuhput
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:21:12 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Livermore, CA

I have a Gateway Telepath 14400 modem, and I would like some advice on 
obtaining the highest cps throughput for zmodem transfers. I'm a novice. 

When I download files from bulletin boards, I rarely get above 1420 cps (for 
highly compressed files; ymodem-g transfers are trivially faster). The 
connection comes up as V.42bis, LAPM, 14400 bps. Since these protocols don't 
send stop/start bits (or at least, they don't have to), I thought I should be 
able to get more like 1600-1700 cps. The zmodem MobyTurbo option, buffer size, 
and window size seem to have no significant effect on the throughput. The 
computers on each end of the connection are 486's. On my end, I've tried 
disabling all caches, ramdisks, etc., with no effect. Specifying cts vs 
xon/xoff vs both has no effect. Typically I'm downloading from a BBS, so I 
have no control on the settings of the machine on the other end, and I don't 
know which version of y,zmodem is being used by the other machine. My 
communications software is zcomm, April '92 version.

I'd appreciate any (kind) suggestions. I've tried diddling with the AT&Qn 
settings, but I assume that since the connection is reported as LAPM, V.42bis, 
the fastest protocols shouls automatically be available. 

Apart from the "low" download speed, I've had no problems with the Telepath 
modem.
From: hughesk@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Kirby W. Hughes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:21:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1aftk0INNhc@sal-sun25.usc.edu> dliao@sal-sun25.usc.edu (David Liao) writes:
>I have a ZyXEL 1496E with caller ID.  I want to experiment the caller id
>feature.  Unfortunately, the manual doesn't provide any information on it.
>Do I need get caller id service from the telephone company?  or the caller
>id works without the service?  

Today I was watching tv (cable, some channel back east) and a commercial
for the local phone company came on with an ad for caller id.  It was
really cool; a box by the phone showed the phone number of the caller
_before_ you even answer.  So I jumped up and called my phone company and
asked about caller id.  They said it was possible here, but not yet
available.  I asked when, they said maybe the end of this year.  I guess
they are going through some process to ok it (legally?).  Then I asked
if there would be an extra cost involved.  "OH YES!", said the woman...

I am going to buy a 14.4 as soon as I decide which brand I should get.  I
was thinking about caller id for it, but I guess I wouldn't even be able
to use it for a long time.  (Any suggestions for a low cost v32.bis with 
v.32, v.42, and v.42bis would be appreciated.)

Kirby Hughes
hughesk@gas.uug.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: mac1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Mubashir Cheema)
Subject: Re: Recommendations for 14.4 ?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:12:37 GMT

isc10192@nusunix1.nus.sg (KOH KHANG WEE) writes:

>Hi !

>I am thinking of getting a 14.4 kbps faxmodem, wonder if anyone out
>there can recommend me some ?

>thanks

>Jerry Koh


 Hi Jerry,
	  I sell the Supra V.32bis faxmodems for $265. They are the best
 deal at this price. These modems have Supra's newest ROM 1.2J. With this
 ROM Supra has fixed all the bugs and have enhanced older features. 
 Here are some specs :


 These are all brand new, shrink-wrapped and come with latest ROM 1.2J 

  Model #     : SUPFAXV32BIS
  Description : SupraFaxModem V.32bis
  Type        : External
  Data Speed  : 14,400/12,000/9600/7200/4800/2400/1200/300 bps data
                (upto 57000bps with V.42 data compression)
  Protocols   : Bell 103/212A,CCIT V.21/V.22/V.22bis/V.32/V.32bis/V.42/
	      : V.42bis, MNP 2-5, & MNP 10
  Fax         : 14,400/12,000/9600/7200/4800/2400 bps send/receive fax
	      : Class 1 & 2 commnads
	      : Group III compatible
  Transmission: V.17,V.29,V.27ter
  other       :
                non-volatile memory; autoanswer/autodial (tone or pulse); 
                extended AT commands and result codes; includes diagnostics, 
                phone jacks, subscriptions to free online services.
                5 year warranty.

  Asking : $265 + $7 (S&H)
   

  Thanx in advance.

Mubashir.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mubashir Cheema: Computer Engineering student at Mississippi State University.
Amiga User and Star Trek Fan (me too :)
I can be reached at Fax/phone : (601) 324-7324 
US mail  : PO Box 4887, MSU             UPS/FedEx: Greentree T.H. # 33D 
           MS State, MS 39762-4887                 110 Lynn Lane  
                                                   Starkville, MS 39759 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bolling's Postulate:
              If you're feeling good, don't worry. You'll get over it.
From: halco@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (ext. 3540)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ZyXEL U1496E+
Date: 25 Sep 92 10:09:39 EST

In article <1992Sep24.043007.40005@camb.com>, bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes:
> 
> The new + versions of the ZyXEL modems ARE using a faster 68000. In both the 
> current and the + versions they run the cpu faster than its nominal speed.
> 
> With the + model they start with a faster cpu and run it even faster, but DO 
> have to screen them because a few can't run at the much higher speed. 

Can anyone confirm this?  I had just about decided to buy a Zyxel, but if they
make a practice of running parts beyond manufacturer's specifications they're
off my list completely.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: st901745@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Alastair M. Bor)
Subject: Re: taping modem signals
Reply-To: st901745@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:58:26 GMT

Yuri:

Could you please post more information on the Lexand TS2400? Does it only
work with 2400bps connections, why is it better than a tape recorder, etc.
-Alastair Bor
st901745@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: andreas@easix.GUN.de (Andreas Baess)
Subject: Re: Only National NS16550's OK/bug-free?
Organization: Private
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:47:42 GMT

kurtk@ee.ualberta.ca (Kurt Klingbeil) writes:
: 
: There are a few 16550 'compatable' chips available.
: Presumably some are clones, others are licensed second-sources?
: 
: I have heard that ONLY the National-produced chips work reliably,
: with the possible exception of Goldstar's clone.
: 
: Has anyone had any experience with this, or could anyone shed some
: detailed light on this topic...

Im using TL16C550 from Texas Instruments and except that they are about
40% cheaper they make no difference to me :)

-- 
Andreas Baess <andreas@easix.GUN.de>          {mcshh,smurf,unido}!easix!andreas
Fontanestr. 12    D-4044 Kaarst1   Tel.: +49 2131 605652   Fax: +49 2131 666754
Save the rain forest, use email
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 115.2 kbps over dialup?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:26:07 EDT
Organization: Izot's Swamp

roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:

> 	I just got a Prometheus Ultima V.32bis/V.42bis modem to play
> with.  Leafing through the manual, I happened to notice a table of
> "Standard CONNECT Result Codes".  One of the possibilities is "CONNECT
> 115200" which is described as "Connection established at 115,200 bps".
> Is this for real?

   Not even close.

   There are several approaches to dealing with the mismatch between the RS-
232 speed and connect speed that is necessary to take advantage of data 
compression, etc.; one is to convert the old one-line response code into a 
three-line code.  Thus, someone speaking to their V.32bis modem at 38400 with 
V.42bis data compression might get a response code set like this:

CONNECT 38400

PROTOCOL: V.42BIS

CARRIER 14400

   The advantage of this is that terminal programs which watch for the number 
after "CONNECT" and match it on the serial port can use it to keep up with 
modems which have locked RS-232 speeds.

   Now that some modems will accept RS-232 speeds up to 115200 bps, "CONNECT 
115200" is a legit response code... but look for the "CARRIER" line that 
follows it to tell you how fast your modem is *really* communicating.

Geoffrey Welsh, 7 Strath Humber Court, Islington, Ontario, M9A 4C8 Canada
geoff@zswamp.uucp, [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff (416)258-8467
         Coincidentally, most people who fight for "fairness" would be
         significantly better off under the system they call "fair"...
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:47:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: RAND

In article <1aftk0INNhc@sal-sun25.usc.edu> dliao@sal-sun25.usc.edu (David Liao) writes:
>I have a ZyXEL 1496E with caller ID.  I want to experiment the caller id
>feature.  Unfortunately, the manual doesn't provide any information on it.
>Do I need get caller id service from the telephone company?  or the caller
>id works without the service?  

1. California does not yet have Caller ID, and may never have it.  This
   is a legal issue, not a technical one--many areas in California
   already have Central Office gear capable of Caller ID.

2. The phone company would need to "turn on" Caller ID.  Otherwise the
   identifying information simply isn't sent to you.  So you'd have
   to pay for it in any case, if it were available.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: h8915726@hkuxb.hku.hk (Chris Lo)
Subject: Modify Supervisory Passord in ZyXEL
Reply-To: h8915726@hkuxa.hku.hk
Organization: The University of Hong Kong
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:45:48 GMT

Hello,

	I've made a mistake, I'm using ZyXEL with v5.01 ROM.
	I tried to modified the supervisory password, which
	is default to "ZyXEL", but I accidentally hit return
	without typing anything. Then I found I cannot
	change the supervisory password now...Does it mean
	a bug or I've lost all those security features
	(except I when change to next version)?

--
Chris Lo
University of Hong Kong
H8915726@hkuxa.hku.hk

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems