Very Computer

by **Tom Hans** » Sat, 20 Feb 1993 03:27:56

We've got an old (3 years) RT lying around - we upgraded to the RS6000
late last year. I'm beginning to get the feeling that I might as well
use it for a boat anchor. The VAR wouldn't take it in trade, IBM quit
supporting/developing AIX for that machine, and I can't seem to give
it away. All indications are that it won't run DOS without a firmware
change. Any thoughts? I'd like to recover some of the money we spent
on it. Of course, at the time the IBM rep _insisted_ it would be
supported even though the RS6000 had just been released. :( Thanks
for any replies.

Tom
--
| Tom Hansen || "My beard grows to my toes. I never wears no |

| "I yam what I yam" || down the road I goes." - Shel Silverstein |
|______________________||___________________________________________________|

by **Ronald S. Wo** » Sun, 21 Feb 1993 02:07:42

If you can't sell the RT, you might see if you can donate it to a
school and take a tax writeoff. I know we have an effort here in
Austin just underway to solicit and place "less than new" systems
(RTs) in particular into the schools to teach UNIX, networking, etc...
hopefully.

--
+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+
+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+

+ other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +

by **Kanthan Pill** » Wed, 24 Feb 1993 20:08:20

>We've got an old (3 years) RT lying around - we upgraded to the RS6000
>late last year. I'm beginning to get the feeling that I might as well
>use it for a boat anchor. The VAR wouldn't take it in trade, IBM quit
>supporting/developing AIX for that machine, and I can't seem to give
>it away. All indications are that it won't run DOS without a firmware
>change. Any thoughts? I'd like to recover some of the money we spent
>on it. Of course, at the time the IBM rep _insisted_ it would be
>supported even though the RS6000 had just been released. :( Thanks
>for any replies.

Sun gave me $1000 apiece for my RTs towards new SPARCs a year ago. Check
with your Sun sales rep. This was back at Princeton University, my old
stomping ground. They were also taking Mac IIs, 486 PCs, and RS/6000s
at the same price. (-:

Other than that, you could run AOS instead of AIX....

Kanthan Pillay
Unix Systems Administrator
C R S 4
Sardinia

* * * * *Centro di Ricerca, Sviluppo e Studi Superiori in Sardegna * * * * * *
* *

* Fax: (39 70) 279-6220 uucp: princeton!svpillay *
* Snail: Via Nazario Sauro, 10 - 09123 Cagliari, Italy *
* *
* * * Centre for Advanced Studies, Research, and Development in Sardinia * * *

by **Jim Morton [ext 23** » Sat, 27 Feb 1993 09:08:55

Has anyone else been bitten by the fact that AIX 3.2 sendmail, when getting
remote SMTP mail in from another machine, always puts a header on it like:

From root
(more header)

My problem is that my mail application sees "From" before "From:" and uses
that, which is wrong. No other Unix machine of mine does this. I've gone
all through sendmail.cf, and the "From " line is not configurable, it
must be in the sendmail binary. I know I can grab the sources for sendmail
and fix this, but I'm wondering if IBM has sent anyone a patched sendmail
that corrects this problem??

--
Jim Morton, Applix Inc., Westboro, MA

by **Steve Faiwiszews** » Thu, 11 Mar 1993 03:34:42

>Has anyone else been bitten by the fact that AIX 3.2 sendmail, when getting
>remote SMTP mail in from another machine, always puts a header on it like:

> From root
> (more header)

>My problem is that my mail application sees "From" before "From:" and uses
>that, which is wrong. No other Unix machine of mine does this. I've gone
>all through sendmail.cf, and the "From " line is not configurable, it
>must be in the sendmail binary. I know I can grab the sources for sendmail
>and fix this, but I'm wondering if IBM has sent anyone a patched sendmail
>that corrects this problem??

Yes, I've come across this problem a while back. I even posted a
query about it, but didn't get any worthwhile replies. This breaks
the Autoreply facility that comes with Elm; it thinks that the sender
is root. To date, I couldn't figure out a way around this.

Has anyone solved this problem?

- Steve -

--

bang : {uupsi,uunet}!bony1!stevef ||| quickly enough, you could see ||
||| what the dark looks like... ||
Opinions? What opinions? | \_________________________________/

Very Computer

IBM RT - Junk??

IBM RT - Junk??

IBM RT - Junk??

IBM RT - Junk??

IBM RT - Junk??

IBM RT - Junk??