home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19970626-19970929
/
000026_news@newsmaster….columbia.edu _Sun Jul 6 12:32:26 1997.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
2KB
Return-Path: <news@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA10141
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 12:32:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA27489
for kermit.misc@watsun; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 12:32:25 -0400 (EDT)
Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!news1.alt.net!usenet
From: artstone@ibm.net (Art Stone)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: File transfer echo problem
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 16:09:43 GMT
Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <33bfc221.879459@news.alt.net>
References: <5poa33$t65$1@alcor.nstar.net>
Reply-To: artstone@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390
Xref: news.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:7274
On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 14:23:30 GMT, Andrew Chalk excited 13 billion
electrons with:
>I am using a micro to communicate from a kermit implementation that I
>wrote to Kermit-TSO v4.0 (88/3/14). When I use the RECEIVE <filename>
>command and send my SEND-INIT packet, the mainframe ECHOS BACK the
>SEND-INIT packet, and then sends the expected ACK. In fact, when I
>modified my code to handle this i found that the mainframe echoes back
>EVERY PACKET I send, including the 'D' (DATA) packets before returning
>the expected response?
>
>Is this a bug in Kermit-TSO or a setting on the mainframe. It
>certainly is strange!
>
Sounds like the mainframe has "echo" enabled - while recently writing a
host implementation, I (very) temporary had the same symptom. You
should try to find out how to disable echo. In the event you are unable
to disable echo, Mr. da Cruz mentions in his book that you can resolve
this by checking to see if the response packet type matches the last
packet you sent. Since this condition never occurs in the protocol, you
can safely ignore the echoed packets.
Art Stone
---
Just one of the 16% of Internet users who used to use AOL