Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 04:30:03 PDT From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #167 To: tcp-group-digest TCP-Group Digest Mon, 8 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 167 Today's Topics: SMTP LZW oddity Send Replies or notes for publication to: . Subscription requests to . Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 09:46:48 +0100 From: A.D.S.Benham@bnr.co.uk Subject: SMTP LZW oddity To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu, nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca In all the code I've seen (apart from my own modified versions), the SMTP LZW exchange goes like this: Client sends "XLZW " Server checks that it can do LZW with these parameters, if so it replies with "25n XLZW OK" and goes to compressed mode. The client checks the response, and iff (m = x) and (n = y) then it too goes to compressed mode. My question is: why does the client check and ? It's too late for the client to decide to not go to compressed mode - the server has already gone compressed. The server code looks as though, in theory, it could return different values from those the client supplied. There may not necessarily be a problem in practice, but from a protocol point of view the exchange seems wrong. Andrew Benham -------------------------------------------------------------------- adsb@bnr.co.uk BNR Europe Ltd, 140 Greenway, Harlow Business Park, Harlow, Essex CM19 5QD +44 279 402372 Fax: +44 279 402029 Home: g8fsl@g8fsl.ampr.org [44.131.181.17] -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 23:42:15 -0700 From: freemanr@dstos3.dsto.gov.au (Roy Freeman) To: TCP-Group@UCSD.EDU I need to configure ka9q as a DNS. The version that I have does not appear to support DNS. Therefore which copy of ka9q or other variety of nos do I require to produce a DNS ------------------------------ End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #167 ******************************