Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!linus!genrad!mit-eddi!mp
From: mp@mit-eddi.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.b
Subject: 2.9 vs 2.10 - garbled inbound news
Message-ID: <219@mit-eddi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jun-83 02:36:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.219
Posted: Fri Jun  3 02:36:03 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jun-83 22:27:42 EDT
Lines: 51

For the past 2 days, we've been getting quite a few (10 per day)
"Inbound news is garbled" errors.  We (and mit-vax) run 2.9, and our
neighbors run 2.10.  I tracked the problem down to 2.9's hread and
frmread routines (in header.c), which will return NULL if they don't
find a "From" (or "Path"), "Posted", and "Article-I.D." line in the
message's header.

Each offending message contained a "Message-ID" line in the header, but no
"Article-I.D." line!

The messages originate from various machines; possibly some machine in
the interim is stripping off the "Article-I.D." line.

I guess the easiest thing to do is include one offending message and
ask all the machines along the path to check if they indeed have an
"Article-I.D."  line in the header of their copy of the message.  Here it
is.  [this message is from mit-vax, not mit-eddie, by the way]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Relay-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site grkermit.UUCP
|Path: grkermit!genrad!linus!allegra!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!@brl:HNIJ%mit-oz@BRL
|From: %brl:HNIJ%mit-oz@BRL@sri-unix.UUCP
|Newsgroups: net.micro
|Subject: C for 6502
|Message-ID: <1634@sri-arpa.UUCP>
|Date: Mon, 30-May-83 04:06:00 EDT
|Lines: 13
|
|From:  John S. Labovitz <@brl:HNIJ%mit-oz@BRL>
|
|Does anyone know of a version of C for the 6502?  I remember hearing
|about Small-C ported to the 6502, but I don't know where or when.
|This is to be used on an Ohio Scientific computer, but I will accept
|anything for any 6502 machine.
|
|		Thank much,
|
|		John Labovitz,
|
|		HNIJ%OZ @ MIT-MC
|-------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The reason we don't run 2.10 yet is because I'm waiting for it
to stabilize.  Nobody here has the time to go installing every
proposed fix that comes along on the net.  It would be greatly
appreciated if a "bug-free" version were placed on decvax and ucbvax
in a week or so.

	Mark