Some people are having trouble ending the write connections.  Why would
ctrl-d not work?  I suggest ctrl-c and that usually seems to do the trick.
My suggestion to helpers:  Don't exit the write session until you get the
eof from the other person. 

Are there Mac comm programs that don't like to send ctrl-d because of a
local use of that key?

61 responses total.

I haven't heard of any problems with this.  Still, it's a good
idea to stay on until the other person sends an EOF, unless you
enjoy having "q", "quit", and "help" pop up in the middle of
what you're doing.  >8)

I would like write to terminate when either user sends a ctrl-d (or -c).
I've had the problem mentioned in #1. Ctrl-d does not seem to work
if the other person has not terminated. 

problems with the "helper flag" being set. . .

Would it be possible to just place the line "mesg -h n" in the
file, /usr/local/lib/global.login?  Seems that would help an awful
lot to alleviate some of the problems associated with the "left
over helper flag set on a terminal" problem.

-bt

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

 Could we add a little prompt that says "control C or D to exit"
? That would end a lot of hassle, and needless explanation

That, and an explanation of sending o and oo would help.

Most users seeking help use !write help, which puts us into that
by-the-line, rather than by-the-character mode. Others come through
with by-the-character. Can we standardize on the latter, or is there
a problem somewhere?

(A)  To use by-character mode, they have to send "write -c help",
and let's face it, the ones who need help aren't going to know that.

(B)  I'd much rather have them use by-line mode.  I know it's annoying
to wait for five minutes to see any response from them, but I'd much
rather have that than have them type things while I'm trying to
type, and then I can't read what they've said.  And of course,
being inexperienced users, they don't know any better.

I find that some newusers don't know they have to wait, and start
writing, while I am, and then *blooey*. If I can see that they are
typing, I can wait until they are done (though we do need to tell
them to use o, when they are done with an entry). What do others
think? If enough prefer by-character, we could use an alias for "write -c".

Perhaps a helper party would be better than write?  Or maybewe can use
ytalk or talk.  I don't think there's a way to use write to everyone's
satisfaction.  If you don't like the way the write session is going, tell
the person to go into party.

steve mentioned a modified party program for helpers, but he's
got other things to worry about right now...

This response has been erased.

On a couple of occasions I've gotten a "write help" but, while I am
responding, the user has terminated (EOF). I can think of several
reasons for that (such as, they finally remembered what they were
going to ask about), but I wonder if anyone else has similar experiences,
and has any conclusions about them.

Was it gfr, by any chance?  He's done that to me several times.
Not a clue as to why he's doing it.

It was a 3-letter user, but I don't recall it to be gfr. I'll keep
that in mind now, though - and record any others that occur. If it
was a write-help, then you personally was not being chosen (unless
the user is watching who has their helper flags up).

From the one time gfr actually wrote back to me, I'd say he
probably doesn't know enough Unix to figure out who has their
help flags set.  Come to think of it, he didn't know what a
help flag was.

This response has been erased.

I was in write with hong and he said ctrl-c, ctrl-d and ctrl-z would not
get him out of write and he'd have to drop carrier.  His terminal or some
other problem likely?

I had that happen, too - I'd suspect some kind of telnet problem
which traps control characters.  How to get around that, I don't
know.

I was in bbs and discovered my helper flag was off, even though it turns
on with a script when .cfonce is run. However I had: 
suspended/write/suspended/bbs/quit/fg/(write)/(bbs). I also have a script
that turns the flag off when I leave bbs. SO - where should my flag be,
after going through all that? Did that one "quit" kill the flag, even
though I wasn't yet back in my first bbs shell? 

This response has been erased.

Here's an interesting occurrence I noted today:
 
newuser  *ttypd    Nov 13 17:45        The Newuser Program
peacefrg  ttype    Nov 13 17:56        PeaceFrog
avi      ?ttyq0    Nov 13 17:03        Avi Pai,Colleen's Heart
poppy     ttyq1    Nov 13 16:49     1  Jennifer Preece
newuser  *ttyq2    Nov 13 17:59        The Newuser Program
 
Looks like two newusers are designated as helpers (and at the time I
checked, they were the only users with helper flags set).  This is
apt to lead to a very confused situation...is there some way to keep
newuser from being hit with a helper flag?

Kent, look again.

The * means that the newusers have their write perms set off, i.e.
nobody may write to them until they've finished running the
newuser program.

The ? next to avi's name shows that he is indeed a helper.

Heh...you know...I think yer right...just hope it doesn't confuse
others like it did me!

Oh, and as far as "indeed a helper"...well, I don't really trust
those flags anyway.  I've been marked as a helper more times than
not when I hadn't set the flag.  

True, but I know avi sets his help flag on.

This response has been erased.

Is there a way to check whether a user's helper flag is really on
(besides write help)?

This response has been erased.

Thanks, Valerie. I gave a plug for the plug. 
Isn't the fact of the helper flag being on stored somewhere, so that the
system can know to refer a write help to one of the flagged helpers? 

In regard to there sometimes not being any "helpers" on line when
a write help is issued:  is it possible (or does it; not sure how
it works now) for that write request to a) realize there are no
helpers on at the moment, and b) issue a message back suggesting
the person e-mail staff (or take pot-luck with the people logged
on?)?
 
Actually, I seem to get a fair number of help requests even though
I don't set the helper flag.  I'm not sure if this is due to an
errant flag (sometimes, I'm sure) or just that I'm logged in a lot.

The last message I saw was just something like "no helpers are on".

Should be possible to change it then (?)  Guess we need the
programmer of that system to let us know.

kentn - People who need help will sometimes ask whoever they
can find, whether they have their help-flag set or not.
When they write to you, does it say "Message from help-seeker robh..."
or just "Message from robh..."?  If it's the latter, then your
flag is not set, they're must being desperate.  >8)

This response has been erased.

Yup, they're desperate, robh :^)

I consider this something that has gone wrong with the help system:  users
are not becoming helpers and turning on their help flags with the
frequency required for good coverage. I have been observing that most of
the time I am on, I am the only helper on. That implies that there are
long periods during which no helpers are on. Does it matter? I average
about 2 or 3 requests for help, every time I am on in Picospan. How many
requests are going unanswered?
  
While it is totally voluntary to be a helper, I think we should seek
voluntary committments from more people to have their helper flag on.
"Enroll" a group of users that will agree to have their helper flag on
(say) 80% of the time they are on using Picospan. Unless there is more
committment, our "helper" system is more of a "helpless" system. 

Sign me up.

I keep my helper flag turned on when I have time to deal with help
requests and am not too sleepy to handle them coherently, and I rarely if
ever get actual write help messages (although I tend to get a fair amount
of write scg type help messages whether or not I have my flag on).

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss