Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: GS Programs. . . Please! Message-ID: <8805071158.aa27267@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> Date: 7 May 88 16:37:20 GMT References:Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 57 >1. When I exec executioner (which I knew about) I get something called >executioner.mod - but no note as to what the Modification was. Could >someone elaborate? The original version of EXECUTIONER started each line of the 6bit encryption with a period ('.'). Some mailer software uses a line beginning with a period as indicating a command for the mailer. The result was that files that went through a gateway using such a mailer got trashed. Soo... someone (Grant Delaney, Morgan Davis????) got the source code from Glen Bredon and patched it to start lines with a '#' ("sharp symbol"?) instead. As far as I know that's the only difference between EXECUTIONER and EXECUTIONER.MOD >5. I have tried numerous times to get mail thru to whitney@think.com - >though our local path databasii say that you talk to rutgers, rutgers >denies this strenously. Can you help from your end? psuvax1 also says think is connected through rutgers; you DO leave off the ".com" don't you? ...rutgers!think!whitney I've had no trouble at sending mail to whitney through the edu/arpa gateways. >6. I have NEVER gotten a successful EZ Install from the Kermit 3.* software >distribution. Could someone upload the DOS 3.3 Binary II creation and >splitting programs? Perhaps THOSE could be used if folks still object (sigh) >to using a superious operating system. Kermit 3.xx now uses EXECUTIONER's 4bit packing. It works EVERY time for me, but my system 1) doesn't add LF after CR, and 2) doesn't pad blank lines (either will hopelessly FUBAR the EZ Install) as will adding a pad character at the end of lines. I have never seen a DOS 3.3 Binary II program, nor have I heard anyone admit to having one. The files are still binary and can't cross gateways (or even IBM/non-IBM interfaces). >7. Has anyone compared Executioner 4 bit against uuencode, atob, or >binhex? Why cannot we use the 6 bit Executioner - it saves a LOT of space! Believe me EXECUTIONER's 6bit causes MAJOR character translation problems on SOME systems as a result of ASCII<-->EBCDIC character conversions (usually between edu and arpa/mil, BUT also within networks which have mixes of IBM and non-IBM hosts). My particular IBM system appears to translate the entire ASCII character set (even control codes) without missing a beat, BUT the VAX at WPI doesn't recover ASCII accurately over bitnet and the IBM at umich.edu has trouble as well (to name only two I KNOW have difficulty). The other translation programs you mention are not in wide circulation (at least I've never seen them on bitnet's IBM systems). --------------------- Disclaimer: The "look and feel" of this message is exclusively MINE! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut