Re: flexfax: List of Outstanding Patches

["Mr. Arlington Hewes" <tpcadmin@info.tpc.int>]

Great work Phil, thanks for getting the ball rolling!

>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, "PW" == Phil Watkinson wrote:

  PW> Hi.

  PW> This is my list of patches & amendments to HylaFAX 4.0pl1 that have
  PW> been mentioned in the mailing list.

[snip]

  PW> Also to be added to this list is a couple of patches mentioned by Mr
  PW> Arlington Hewes. In his email of the 22/5/97 "POKE!" a fix for the
  PW> 'unnecessary rejection of source-routed email address when fed to
  PW> sendfax' and in his email of the same date "3 more patches" a fix for
  PW> the 'requeue immediately bug'.

Oh gawd, you want patches? Let's see . . . I believe the unnecessary
rejection bit was a report of HylaFAX rejecting RFC-compliant From:
addresses (comes up if you run this turkey as an e-mail->FAX gateway a
lot). We got around the problem by sanitising the SMTP envelope's recipient
pretty aggressively, but a general fix would be good. Phil Abercrombie may
remember this one better than I. I would classify this as annoying, but
non-urgent.

I had said:

tpcadmin@info.tpc.int said:
> a) Unnecessary rejection of source-routed e-mail addresses when fed to
> the  sendfax commandline, reported by randy@psg.com

> @pucc.PRINCETON.EDU:owner-atlas-l@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU is rejected with:
> Malformed (null) sender name or mail address 


 As for a fix to the 'requeue immediately bug', well, Jonathan Chen and I
reproduced the problem together and I seem to recall him posting a very
tentative fix - or at least an analysis of the problem with reference to
code.  I will include my original post to the list below, in case it jump
starts a few neurons out there.


  PW> I'm sure I've missed some, and I have made no effort to measure their
  PW> worth - I am just wondering if we need to discuss the changes before
  PW> thinking of going to patch level 2 ?

Phil Abercrombie <phil@comp.vuw.ac.nz> reported a potential patch (I 
don't believe anyone ever commented on it) for:

Job numbers for outgoing faxes increase sequentially from 1 to 31999
but then instead of starting again at 0, the next number is 1999 and
then 200009 after which things settle down again.

Incorporating that one, should it resurface, would be high on the 
desirability scale, I would think.

How about Tim Rice's "make client" patch?? As well, any contributed         
modem configs, such as Creatix SG 144s from gorski@poboxes.com in           
<199708281843.UAA16970@poboxes.com>, oh and how about the mailfax script    
for qmail from Morten Skjelland <Morten.Skjelland@chembio.ntnu.no> in       
<kh1bu3tr45l.fsf@chembio.ntnu.no>.                                   

I hope this does not sound like I'm just whining for fixes - I would love 
to be able to offer code but I am not capable of contributing on that 
level, alas.

-DPN


The 'requeue immediately' post: