|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 170 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 100 of 170:
| 
Nov 15 22:37 UTC 2001 |
Looks to me like the software did exactly what was asked of it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 101 of 170:
|
Nov 16 05:38 UTC 2001 |
(Marcus, which response was #100 a reply to?)
Re #96: I'm told that's what happens with SSH when the telnet queue is
full. Someone mentioned that specific error somewhere up above. I've taken
killing the connection as soon as I see the warning about no pseudo tty.
|
davel
|
|
response 102 of 170:
|
Nov 16 14:13 UTC 2001 |
I just ran lynx, and also saw it paint the screen twice. It did this when
it first came up and when I went to a new page, but not (I think) when it went
to a new screenful in the same page. ("Scroll" is not really the word I
want.)
FWIW, I'm dialed in.
$TERM is vt100
stty -a gives:
speed 4800 baud; rows 24; columns 80; line = 2;
intr = ^C; quit = ^\; erase = ^H; kill = ^U; eof = ^D; eol = <undef>;
eol2 = <undef>; swtch = <undef>; start = ^Q; stop = ^S; susp = ^Z; dsusp =
^Y;
rprnt = ^R; werase = ^W; lnext = ^V; flush = ^O; status = <undef>;
parenb -parodd cs7 -hupcl -cstopb cread -clocal -crtscts
-ignbrk brkint ignpar -parmrk -inpck istrip -inlcr -igncr icrnl ixon -ixoff
-iuclc -ixany imaxbel
opost -olcuc -ocrnl onlcr -onocr -onlret -ofill -ofdel nl0 cr0 tab0 bs0 vt0
ff0
isig icanon iexten echo echoe echok -echonl -noflsh -xcase -tostop -echoprt
echoctl echoke
|
keesan
|
|
response 103 of 170:
|
Nov 16 14:13 UTC 2001 |
Newlynx screen was always redrawing itself once (two draws). The latest lynx
seems to sometimes only draw once, sometimes twice, and just now it redrew
four times. Tolerable but peculiar.
|
janc
|
|
response 104 of 170:
|
Nov 16 15:06 UTC 2001 |
Hmm. I'm seeing redraws too, though my net connection is fast enough that
they aren't very noticable. No idea what that is about. Tim seemed to have
things misbehaving so badly that it was unusable. I'm more concerned about
that.
|
keesan
|
|
response 105 of 170:
|
Nov 16 15:52 UTC 2001 |
I checked and yes the page redraws when it loads but not when scrolling down.
The drawing it four times only happened once so far. I am dialed in (at
14.4K).
|
jhudson
|
|
response 106 of 170:
|
Nov 16 16:02 UTC 2001 |
Re #96: termcap/termios programs do not work w/o a psuedo
tty because there is no way to turn echo on/off.
If you want to experiment to find a way to fix, try this
$ nc -l -p 1025 -e /bin/sh &
$ telnet 127.0.0.1 1025
|
rcurl
|
|
response 107 of 170:
|
Nov 16 17:00 UTC 2001 |
I received an automated e-mail response from a .com in which the message
is a MIME encoded Windows MS-WORD document. It was in the body of the
message, however, not an attachment, and notated as
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64". I presume some web browser e-mail
function would open this directly, but it isn't very useful with pine. I
don't use a browser for e-mail, so I am not sure what to tell the .com
what they should do so that their e-mail can be read by a wider variety of
e-mail readers. Can anyone tell me what I should tell them?
|
other
|
|
response 108 of 170:
|
Nov 16 17:15 UTC 2001 |
Your mail software may be set to present the attachment inline as opposed
to as an attached file.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 109 of 170:
|
Nov 16 17:26 UTC 2001 |
This is the first time I have ever received an e-mail message in this
format. The message, in MIME encoded Windows MS-WORD, also had an
imbedded web link - could this have anything to do with it not being
presented as an attachment?
|
keesan
|
|
response 110 of 170:
|
Nov 16 18:15 UTC 2001 |
I have usually been able to persuade people to send the same file again after
converting from WORD to text.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 111 of 170:
|
Nov 16 18:22 UTC 2001 |
Do you mean from WORD as an attachment? My question is how what was
probably intended to be an attachment was compressed and yet got included
in the body of the message. Does the MIME attachment process kick out
messages with some types of content (such as a URL link embedded in a WORD
document)?
|
keesan
|
|
response 112 of 170:
|
Nov 16 18:23 UTC 2001 |
Could you possibly write up such a file and send it to yourself as an
attachment to test this theory?
|
tpryan
|
|
response 113 of 170:
|
Nov 16 18:39 UTC 2001 |
I tested setting my grex setting TERM to ansi. I came out
worse. Then I changed Procomm (minus) to present as a VT-100
terminal. That worked better. I am now all green, with the lynx
bold colors coming up in blue (as before).
I still get that double draw thing on a page, but not the
scroll down function.
Thanks.
Old setting for Procomm was ansi-bbs.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 114 of 170:
|
Nov 16 18:42 UTC 2001 |
I can't send it from a browser as I don't want to reconfigure my
browser for e-mail. I think it might be a problem with how a
browser converts attachments to a message, and perhaps only just
a Windows browser.
Here is how the message appeared to me (truncated to save space):
From tech@designtech-intl.com Fri Nov 16 00:04:39 2001
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:26:12 -0500
From: tech@designtech-intl.com
To: ranecurl@umich.edu
Subject: Tech Feedback (copy)
--208.204.240.91.1.888.1005848764.543.15348
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Cjxmb250IGZhY2U9ImFyaWFsIiBzaXplPSIyIj4KPHRhYmxlIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgd2lkdGg9IjEw
...snip...
I unpacked it with MacLinkPlus (a general translation app), which produced
a document designated [PC] (which Macs do for Windows documents). It
opened with MS-WORD 98 (for the Mac) to give the complete message with
a URL link embedded.
So, how was the message created and why did it not come to me as an
attachment?
|
scott
|
|
response 115 of 170:
|
Nov 16 19:27 UTC 2001 |
Tim, Procomm Plus (at least the version I had under DOS) has a not-quite-right
vt100 emulation.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 116 of 170:
|
Nov 16 19:34 UTC 2001 |
"Attachment" is, in some ways, a misnomer. MIME is a method of putting
several different things in messages. It's all one message, with several
"parts." (If I recall correctly, the original expansion of the MIME acronym
was "Multi-part Internet Mail Extensions"; later, that first word become
"Multi-purpose".)
Many parts of the Internet were not (and may still not be) "8-bit safe."
The Base64 encoding converts 8-bit text into 7-bit text that can be
transported anyhwere on the Internet.
Last I looked, Pine *did* have a Base64 decoder. The "viewAttch" command
_should_ work even if the only part of the message is Base64-encoded.
*SHOULD*; I usually switch to Mulberry when people send me such things,
if I *really* want to read it and not just delete it, since I don't have
a version of MS Word that runs on my Solaris desktop, and I don't want
the hassle of FTP/AFS to get the file from the Unix box to a machine that
does have Word.
So either viewAttch or Save and then transfer the resultant file to a
machine that has Word.
|
keesan
|
|
response 117 of 170:
|
Nov 16 19:42 UTC 2001 |
I have a little program called VIEW which strips WORD to ASCII, and LIST also
makes it readable without needing to own WORD. VIEW is shareware. It also
reads WP and HTML and a few other formats. DOS-based.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 118 of 170:
|
Nov 16 21:35 UTC 2001 |
The viewAttch did not work because nothing was attached. As I said in #114,
I did Save it and expand it with MacLInkPlus. The question is still,
why did not tech@designtech-intl.com send it as an attachment? Or, why
did it end up as the message (still encoded) and not as a decoded binary
attachment?
|
other
|
|
response 119 of 170:
|
Nov 17 03:13 UTC 2001 |
The header of the message contains the line
Content-Type: [MIME type]
the purpose of which is to identify to the mail client the encoding
format of the subsequent portion of the message, which the client will
use to properly parse it.
If the snippet you include above is correctly presented, the MIME type in
the header is not the correct one for the attachment. If you edit the
message file, you can change the content-type to the proper MIME type
(application/msword) and then your email client should properly parse the
attachment.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 120 of 170:
|
Nov 17 06:11 UTC 2001 |
Does that not mean that there is a problem with the *sender's* e-mail
client? I have never had this happen before, except when done deliberately
by a person unable to attach a message. This, however, was an automated
response from a .com in response to an inquiry.
I believe all you say, but the question is, why did this happen, not what
can I do to read the message? Or, what should I tell the sender to do
with their client, so attachments are properly attached for processing
by our a pine client?
What I presented above is precisely what I saw when reading the message
with pine.
|
other
|
|
response 121 of 170:
|
Nov 17 12:55 UTC 2001 |
I have not the slightest indication of a clue as to why it might have
happened or what to tell the sender. I can only guess that they were
using Microsoft software. (That too might be confirmed by the headers.
Look for X-sender:) If that is the case than all I can suggest is that
they upgrade to something less idiotic.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 122 of 170:
|
Nov 17 16:11 UTC 2001 |
(I'll tell them that.....)
|
jhudson
|
|
response 123 of 170:
|
Nov 17 18:23 UTC 2001 |
If I recall, pine can split messages into attachments.
You should be able to save the attachment to disk and
use the strings command to read it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 124 of 170:
|
Nov 17 21:35 UTC 2001 |
Reading it is not a problem. Again, the problem is, why was the encoded
message displayed with the heading, rather than attached. Pine certainly
does separate the message and the attachments, but did not in this
case. What did the sender's client do to make this happen?
|
