Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:04:15 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
Your message of "Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:39:22 CST."
<4BC0DDB69EF2D21196C40090274E760476AA97@DC2> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:39:22 CST, Conor Doyle <[log in to unmask]> said:
> So it looks like it is still on their end? Sorry, I'm still pretty
> inexperienced with these things.
Just remember that when some of us started, it was a lot uglier (%-hacks,
anybody?), and there wasn't a wealth of experience you could draw on if
things went horridly wrong... ;)
At least in our old age, the questions are *easy* - unlike (say) the FDDI
interface at JVNC that had a bitpattern-dependent timing problem tickled
by Bitnet traffic that hosed up the NSFNet-Bitnet gateway one summer, or
the bitnet-uucp gateway that I had that kept wedging up because the bisync
interface on the Gould PN/9080 didn't implement transparency the way an
IBM interface did (it would escape an ASCII SYN char (not to be confused
with a TCP SYN packet), but not an EBCDIC one, but not consistently).
Enough rambling, time to go back to writing a scope document and listening
to some Judas Priest cranked up high enough to drown out the distractions. ;)
/Valdis
|
|
|