HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 29 JUL 92 20:55:53 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From: "L. Stuart Vance" <VANCE@TGV.COM>
From: "L. Stuart Vance" <VANCE@TGV.COM>
Subject: Re: RFC931 support?
Organization: TGV, Incorporated
X-Phone: 408/427-4366 (work); 408/427-4365 (fax)
X-Address: 603 Mission Street; Santa Cruz, CA  95060 (work)

>    Absolutely none.  RFC931 is NOT an authentication protocol, it is
>a protocol which allows a user on a machine to claim that a particular
>connection is owned by a particular user.  It doesn't provide any
>additional security, and a substantial false sense of security.
>
>    We'd be happy to implement a protocol which did what RFC931 does
>if someone could point out some value to it (other than security
>through obscurity), and only if it weren't titled "Authentication
>Server".

I've heard tell that the IETF is working on an Ident SNMP MIB.  It provides the
same level of identification at RFC931, but integrated into an SNMP agent. 
It's no more secure than RFC931, but it'll be much more difficult to spoof and
SNMP agent than the rather simple-minded RFC931 protocol.

Regards,
-----Stuart
From: SEF@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
Subject: Multinet Error Messages
Date: 31 Jul 92 21:16:48 GMT
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From:    SEF@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Better is the enemy of good... Voltaire)
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"info-multinet@tgv.com",SEF

We are getting the following rapid series of messages on the system console. We
have a VAX 780 with an Excelan board and are running VMS 5.3-1 with MULTINET
3.0. Know where I can find an explanantion of this error message or else what
the problem is? I presume it has something to do with "heart beat" signals but
as far as I know this is not turned on. Telnet and FTP do work by the way. But
the error messages occur so frequently that the OPERATOR.LOG swells to
30,000 blocks in 2 days. 

$
%%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  31-JUL-1992 12:31:31.89  %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user MULTINET
ex0: transmit error=11<SQETST>

$
%%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  31-JUL-1992 12:31:32.40  %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user MULTINET
ex0: transmit error=11<SQETST>

$
%%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  31-JUL-1992 12:31:32.89  %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user MULTINET
ex0: transmit error=11<SQETST>

$
%%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  31-JUL-1992 12:31:33.40  %%%%%%%%%%%
Message from user MULTINET
ex0: transmit error=11<SQETST>



Thanks,

Scott Fullner
NASA/JPL
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
Subject: Digital News Excelsior Awards
From: jms@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)
Date: 21 Jul 1992 16:39 MST  
Reply-To: jms@arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
X-Lunar-Date: 5 days, 4 hours, 56 minutes since the full moon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In today's Digital News, you can find your Buyer's Choice award nomination
form.  After I read the fascinating article on Page 1 (and the 
product review for Planet X), I was planning on suggesting that

	TGV Multinet is the Best Overall Product for "Terminal Server/Wide 
		Area Networking Product"
	Multinet NFS Client & Server are Best Overall Products for "File/
		Disk/Printer Server and/or Client"

I have other suggestions, but they have to go in other news groups...

Joel M Snyder, 1103 E Spring Street, Tucson, AZ, 85719 
Phone: 602.882.4094 (voice) .4095 (FAX) .4093 (data)
BITNET: jms@Arizona  Internet: jms@arizona.edu  SPAN: 47541::telcom::jms
"They wouldn't let me be on the Nominations Panel, so I can cheat as
much as I want to..."
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 30 JUL 92 15:06:52 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From: Jim Whitfill - Los Alamos <WHITFILL@meediv.lanl.gov>
From: Jim Whitfill - Los Alamos <WHITFILL@meediv.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: RFC 1339 support: Remote Mail Checking Protocol.
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

We are getting multiple copies of postings; this is the 4th copy of the one
below that I've seen............................





> 
> >From: "Ned Freed (Postmaster)" <NED@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM>
> >There's a limited version of the protocol that is slightly more implementable
> >in the VMS environment, but not overly so.
> >
> >If you can come up with a reasonable way to deal with these issues in the
> >VMS environment I'd love to hear about it. I had serious thoughts about
> >implementing this protocol in PMDF until I started to consider how the
> >actual implementation would have to be done.
> >
> >				Ned
> 
> Most users are more interested in the presence or absence of new mail and for 
> them a simple check of the VMSMAIL profile should be good enough.  The time 
> stamps are more or less optional and I do not see any way of implementing them 
> in VMS.  The section "Server Implementation Notes" in RFC 1339 provides for a 
> way of not implementing time stamps.
> 
> The way I was thinking about this was:
> 
> A client makes a request and sends the username.  The server asks for the 
> password (unless the ipaddress/port/maildrop triple is stored) and checks 
> the SYSUAF for password and existence of account.  If the account does 
> not exist, zeros are sent back.  If the account exists, the VMSMAIL profile is 
> checked for new mail.  If new mail exists or the number of records in the 
> user's MAIL.MAI is more than one, an appropriate response is send back for New 
> mail or Old Mail.
> 
> The current POP protocol has too much overhead which includes a process 
> creation and much more work on the part of the server.
> 
> 
>   Sanjay Kapur    (SK54)              |Internet:    Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>   Systems Staff, Computing Services,  |Bitnet:      SKAPUR@USB
>   State University of New York,       |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
>   Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400        |Phone:+1-516 632 8029, FAX:+1-516 632 8046
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim A. Whitfill    Mechanical & Electronic Eng. Division     (505) 667-9282
whitfill@meediv.lanl.gov       		     Los Alamos National Laboratory

X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 22 JUL 92 16:09:06 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From: "Maurice: The Pompatis of love" <ECF_STBO@JHUVMS.HCF.JHU.EDU>
From: "Maurice: The Pompatis of love" <ECF_STBO@JHUVMS.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Subject: simple servers...
X-VMS-To: IN%"info-multinet@tgv.com"
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

 Has anybody had any luck writing a very simple server using MULTINET_SERVER to
setup the connection and the languages run time library to do I/O to the
connection? Basically what I'm wondering is: can I do essentially the equivalent
of decnet transparent task to task...? The FORTRAN program I am using:

-----------------
! It's the HELLO WORLD of servers, an echo server...

	implicit none

	character*255 buff
	integer nc

! try to open log (just reassigns sys$error so I can get the error info)
	call setlogfile

! open std. I/O
	open(unit=5,file='SYS$INPUT:',status='unknown',
	1	carriagecontrol='list')
	open(unit=6,file='SYS$OUTPUT:',
	1	status='unknown',carriagecontrol='list')

! merely echo whats read back to the output...
1	format(q,a)
10	read(5,1,end=99) nc,buff

2	format(a)
	write(6,2) buff(:nc)

	goto 10

99	call exit
	end
-------------------------

This program is 'installed' with the mu conf/serv command as a new service and
then I test it by telnetting to that port, but the program fails on the 
first open with the following:

-------------------------
%FOR-F-NO_SUCDEV, no such device
  unit 5  file _INET53:[MULTINET]FOR005.DAT;
  user PC 00000618
-RMS-F-DEV, error in device name or inappropriate device type for operation
%TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows
module name     routine name                     line       rel PC    abs PC

                                                           00020DC6  00020DC6
                                                           00020CD3  00020CD3
                                                           0001BA3C  0001BA3C
                                                           0001A49A  0001A49A
TEST_SERVER$MAI TEST_SERVER$MAIN                   11      00000018  00000618

--------------------------

I assume what's happening is dorky RMS is having trouble with the 'mailbox'
INET device, which is weird, since it works with decnet. I can't come up with
any open statement keyword combination that makes it work. Do I have to use the
socket library, and/or $assign and $qio???? I guess it's not the end of the
world, and once I've done it, I'll have a libarary, but it would be so nice to
be able to write little servers like this. If I missing something obvious,
someone please tell me! 

Tom O'Toole - ecf_stbo@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer 
Homewood Computing Facilities, Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218 
> * OLX 2.1 * ease!Trim!eeeaaaassse!trimtrimTRIMeeeeeeeaaaaaasse!trimea
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 30 JUL 92 07:04:54 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From:    mcmahon @ TGV.COM (John 'Fast-Eddie/FuzzFace' McMahon)
From: mcmahon@TGV.COM
Subject: Digital News - vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet #2799
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

In article <711672383.599000.VANCE@TGV.COM>, "L. Stuart Vance" <VANCE@TGV.COM> writes:
>On the cover of the 7/20/92 issue of Digital News is a nomination form for
>Digital News' new Excelsior Awards.  Their categories are somewhat limited
>in the networking end of the world:
>
>And remember that Ed and I thank you for your support.  :-)

How come that "Ed" guy never says anything ?

And where is the "nifty underwear" catagory ?

Cheers!
That Ed Guy...

--
John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon    ()
TGV, Incorporated            () "Any networking problem can be solved by
603 Mission Street           ()  the application of 33 miles of Unshielded 
Santa Cruz, California 95060 ()  Twisted Pair (UTP)"   
408-427-4366 or 800-TGV-3440 ()                      [InterOp Spring 1992]
E-Mail: MCMAHON@TGV.COM      ()

X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 23 JUL 92 16:30:34 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From:     adelman (Kenneth Adelman) @ TGV.COM
From: adelman@TGV.COM
Subject:  Re: problem with rlogin from ultrix to vms 5.5-1 host
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

>	  I am doing an rlogin/telnet from an ultrix system to a vax 4300
>	  which is running vms 5.5-1 and multinet.


>	  I get in fine but if I go to another window on my ultrix system
>	  and then return to "vms" window a little while later, I find that
>	  my connection is closed even though my process is still running
>	  on the vms system.

>	  any ideas as to who is killing this process....

    What error is printed on the UNIX side when TELNET exits?

    I'd try getting a TCPDUMP of the connection from a third machine, eg:
$ multinet tcpdump/snap=1500/hex port telnet and host xxx and host yyy

								Ken
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 29 JUL 92 20:55:39 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From:     adelman (Kenneth Adelman) @ TGV.COM
From: adelman@TGV.COM
Subject:  Re: RFC931 support?
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

>	  Some people (from other sites even) have been asking about support
> for RFC931, which provides for the authentication of a connection between
> two systems.	For example, it would allow you to find out who that person
> is that has a telnet connection open to your system from across the
> country.

>	  Are there any plans to support this in Multinet?

    Absolutely none.  RFC931 is NOT an authentication protocol, it is
a protocol which allows a user on a machine to claim that a particular
connection is owned by a particular user.  It doesn't provide any
additional security, and a substantial false sense of security.

    We'd be happy to implement a protocol which did what RFC931 does
if someone could point out some value to it (other than security
through obscurity), and only if it weren't titled "Authentication
Server".

							Ken

X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 31 JUL 92 01:10:42 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From: Jim Whitfill - Los Alamos <WHITFILL@meediv.lanl.gov>
From: Jim Whitfill - Los Alamos <WHITFILL@meediv.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re:  nfs between two  vms systems?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

> 
> No doubt this has been discussed before, but how well do the current nfs
> client and server versions run between two VMS systems?  I really havent
> looked at this much since the early versions where it didnt have that 
> capability.  
>   thanks,
> 	drex
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Drexel Atkinson 			BITNET:  	datkins@unmb
>     Systems Programmer			INTERNET:     	datkins@ariel.unm.edu
>     CIRT-ACS  University of New Mexico  
>     
> 

I have several VMS systems that use NFS Client/Server to share disks. It has
been working great. I haven't had any problems with it. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim A. Whitfill    Mechanical & Electronic Eng. Division     (505) 667-9282
whitfill@meediv.lanl.gov       		     Los Alamos National Laboratory
From: rainwatr@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
Subject: Client/server email implementations?
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:01:48 EST
Reply-To: Don.Rainwater@UC.Edu
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati Center for IT Services

In article <2380663530JUL92190819@TGV.COM>, busma@TGV.COM writes:
> From: rainwatr@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
>>	Does Multinet support (or plan to support) IMAP mail clients? 
>>We're starting to evaluate our email client options, and someone mentioned
>>that IMAP is supposed to be "better" than POP.
>
> 	MultiNet currently does not have an IMAPx server.
> 	While  TGV may develop an IMAPx server in a future release, there are no 	
> 	plans at this time to support IMAPx. (x=version 2 or 3)
> 
> 	We considered doing so 1-1/2 years ago, however IMAP clients
> 	were not in  abundance.
> 
> 							Jeff

	Well, in that case, how about this:  What is the best client/server
implementation for email?  The solution should allow mail message stored on
the VAX to be read from a variety of clients, including Macintosh, DOS, and
possibly Unix.  The client should (optionally?) allow the mail messages to
remain on the server, and should support the mail folders concept of VMS
Mail.  Other desirable features include support for MIME, as well as
efficient use of, and minimum overhead on, the server.

	I realize this is a tall order, and I know that it's probably going
to be difficult to find something that satisfies all of the goals. 
However, I'll take what I can get. :)

	Thanks for any information.
--
Don Rainwater, Systems Manager, Univ. of Cincinnati Center for IT Services
Don.Rainwater@UC.Edu
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 30 JUL 92 05:03:44 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From: Sanjay Kapur <SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: Sanjay Kapur <SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC 1339 support: Remote Mail Checking Protocol.
Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-VMS-To: IN%"NED@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"info-multinet@tgv.com",SKAPUR

>From: "Ned Freed (Postmaster)" <NED@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM>
>There's a limited version of the protocol that is slightly more implementable
>in the VMS environment, but not overly so.
>
>If you can come up with a reasonable way to deal with these issues in the
>VMS environment I'd love to hear about it. I had serious thoughts about
>implementing this protocol in PMDF until I started to consider how the
>actual implementation would have to be done.
>
>				Ned

Most users are more interested in the presence or absence of new mail and for 
them a simple check of the VMSMAIL profile should be good enough.  The time 
stamps are more or less optional and I do not see any way of implementing them 
in VMS.  The section "Server Implementation Notes" in RFC 1339 provides for a 
way of not implementing time stamps.

The way I was thinking about this was:

A client makes a request and sends the username.  The server asks for the 
password (unless the ipaddress/port/maildrop triple is stored) and checks 
the SYSUAF for password and existence of account.  If the account does 
not exist, zeros are sent back.  If the account exists, the VMSMAIL profile is 
checked for new mail.  If new mail exists or the number of records in the 
user's MAIL.MAI is more than one, an appropriate response is send back for New 
mail or Old Mail.

The current POP protocol has too much overhead which includes a process 
creation and much more work on the part of the server.


  Sanjay Kapur    (SK54)              |Internet:    Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
  Systems Staff, Computing Services,  |Bitnet:      SKAPUR@USB
  State University of New York,       |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
  Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400        |Phone:+1-516 632 8029, FAX:+1-516 632 8046

X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 30 JUL 92 05:03:36 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From:     adelman (Kenneth Adelman) @ TGV.COM
From: adelman@TGV.COM
Subject:  Re: Possible Bug?? (fwd)
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

>>     The default MultiNet installation has POSTMASTER set to SYSTEM
>> for this reason. Whatever the destination of the POSTMASTER account, it
>> should have forwarding disabled and perhaps even be on the system
>> disk with a lot of quota to prevent this problem.
>>
>>							     Ken
>>
> Ken, what does "POSTMASTER set to SYSTEM" actually mean? I don't know of any
> aliasing system or anything like that.  On our other VAX, also running
> Multinet, I did notice that POSTMASTER and SYSTEM have the same UIC, and that
> is how I set up the problem system this morning.  Should the SMTP symbiont
> really have been just as happy sending the response to SYSTEM even without
> POSTMASTER being defined in SYSUAF.DAT?  Or do both need to be defined, but
> giving them the same UIC mean both read the same mail?

    It means the in MULTINET CONFIGURE/NETWORK that the SMTP-POSTMASTER
parameter is set to SYSTEM (the default). This causes START_MULTINET.COM
to define a system-wide logical name POSTMASTER as SYSTEM. Setting to the
value POSTMASTER will cause it to not create this logical name.

    MultiNet didn't create the POSTMASTER account on your system; either
you or some other software package did. Both don't need to be defined;
as long as MultiNet is given a "safe" destination for Postmaster mail.
You'd need to give them the same UIC and directory for them both to
read the same mail.

							Ken

X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 28 JUL 92 06:47:48 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From:     adelman (Kenneth Adelman) @ TGV.COM
From: adelman@TGV.COM
Subject:  Re: IAFA-WG -- please help on the VMS side
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

> How I get involved in what I get involved in is and remains a mystery.  If
> you are unaware of it, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) created
> the Internet Anonymous FTP Archive (IAFA) Working Group last November.  To
> date, a draft and a revised draft have been prepared.  You can retrieve
> these by including the command SENDME IAFA in the body of a mail message to
> FILESERV@SHSU.BITNET (FILESERV@SHSU.edu) or by anonymous ftp from
> Niord.SHSU.edu (192.92.115.8) in the directory [FILESERV.IAFA].  Also, if
> you are interested in this, you can subscribe to the group's e-mail
> discussion list, iafa@cc.mcgill.ca, by sending a mail message to
> iafa-request@cc.mcgill.ca and requesting to be added.

    I reviewed the documents and have some basic comments. Feel free to
repost these to the IAFA mailing list if you'd like; I have no desire
to attract what I'm sure would be flames --

    The information presented in the first part of the draft doesn't
belong in an RFC -- it belongs in a UNIX man page.  It looks like an
attempt to codify what is already practiced on a large part of the
Internet, and to make up for deficiencies in particular vendors'
documentation.	Is this a standards-track RFC?

    The later part of the RFC attempts to provide a mechanism for
automated information retrieval, but it does so in a UNIX-specific way
(eg, it constrains filenames to begin with "IAFA-".  What about MS-DOS
server which can't handle the length, or a server which couldn't
handle upper-case names?  What if it couldn't handle lower-case
names?)  It is very UNIX centric, and perhaps worse, makes particular
pecular assumptions about the current behavior of BSD networking (line
345; part 2).

    I don't think the specification should be saved by putting in the
VMS specifics, it wouldn't fix the fundamental flaws associated with
having OS-specifics in a protocol or RFC.

    The document also badly needs a spelling checker run on it.

							    Ken
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
Date: 31 JUL 92 07:12:44 GMT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From: "Seth Goldberg" <goldberg@davidsys.com>
From: "Seth Goldberg" <goldberg@davidsys.com>
Subject: a proposed Multinet setup
X-Vms-Mail-To: UUCP%"info-multinet@tgv.com"
X-Vms-Mail-Cc: GOLDBERG
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community

We have 26 SPARCstations, all of which use disks on a HSC50 in a
VAXcluster that has a VAX 8550 and 8530.  Currently the 8550 has
the Multinet software and everybody is on the same Ethernet segment.

Traffic is high and I think splitting into two or more subnets and
physically different segments would help.  Would the following work?

I would add Multinet to the 8530 and split the single segment into
two sections, breaking them on workgroup boundaries.  Each VAX would
be on a different segment and be an NFS server of (even the same) HSC50
disk drives to each segment.  However, we do want some limited IP traffic
(ping, telnet, rlogin, ftp, snmp) between the segments.  Could I then
essentially use the VAXCluster as a router by running IP over
DECnet over the CI interfaces (remember the Ethernet controller
on one VAX is not on the same segment as the Ethernet controller
on the other VAX) and use the routing support in Multinet?
Or can Multinet use the CI interfaces directly?

We do have some VAXstations and they will lose their failover
capability between the two 8500s as boot and server nodes. Is there
anything else I might be overlooking or another configuration to consider?

Could I also add second Ethernet controllers to the 8500s to get
4 segments?  (I am assuming I would get better NFS performance by
having two CPUs involved than one as I do now.)


Seth Goldberg
Manager, Computer Resources
David Systems, Inc
Internet:  goldberg@davidsys.com  
    UUCP:  ...!uunet!sam!goldberg
From: secrist@kxovax.enet.dec.com (Strong datatypes for weak minds.)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
Subject: Tested mounting NFS volumes on DEC OSF V1.0 (MIPS) from VMS host ?
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:32:24 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


	Has anyone tested Multinet's interaction with DEC OSF/1 V1.0 yet,
	specifically NFS-mounted volumes which reside on a VMS host ?

	Regards,
	rcs
From: mcmahon@TGV.COM
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
Subject: Loop (Was Re: RFC 1339 support: Remote Mail Checking Protocol.)
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:09:52 GMT
Organization: The INFO-MULTINET Community
X-Gateway-Source-Info: INTERNET
X-Return-path: <info-multinet-relay@TGV.COM>
X-RFC822-From:    mcmahon @ TGV.COM (John 'Fast-Eddie/FuzzFace' McMahon)

Looks like the glitch in the mailing list was here at TGV.  Hopefully it is 
fixed now.  :-)