Very Computer

I have been trying for quite some time to have my SCO 3.2v4.2 to commuicate
to an AT&T 3b2/522 or 3b2/1000 uucp over tcp/ip at the tli level.
I have the information from SCO at hand and and an item has me confused,
that is "use a port not alrady used" and not port 540.

I used the "suggested" sample port of 698. Other than entering the port
into etc services, along with the rest of the supporting files, what next ?

So I add 698 to the services file.. ??????

The problem then comes I can have the AT&T 3b2 do a uutry to the SCO
system and if using HDB uucp on the SCO, it works like a champ IF the
3b2 initates the request... I have NOT been able to have the SCO system
ever to initate a uutry and have it succeed at all!

For what is worth, there are 3 systems on the same network, 2 AT&T 3b2's
and 1 SCO system trying to exhange information.

What follows is a transscript of the log and the error.. Can anyone shed
some light on this...  Ultimatly, I need to get this to work using Taylor
uucp on the SCO box versus HDB... I know someone claims to have this working
but for the last sereral months, an occasional message to him has gone
unanswered..

Thanks in advance for any leads or tips...

Dave

Here is the log file:
SCO using HDB.........

mchFind called (scrash)
list (rmail) num = 1
fillFlds: entered
fillFlds: returning
list (/usr/spool/uucppublic) list (/usr/tmp) list (/tmp) num = 3
list (/usr/spool/uucppublic) list (/usr/tmp) list (/tmp) num = 3
list (rmail) list (rnews) list (uucp) num = 3
_Request (TRUE), _Switch (TRUE), _CallBack (FALSE), _MyName (), _Commands rmail
_Commands rnews
_Commands uucp
chdir(/usr/spool/uucp/scrash)
conn(scrash)
ProtoStr = e
Device Type TLI wanted
Internal caller type TLI
tlicall: bound to  
t_connect to addr "\002\N\002o?\r\377\N\N\N\N\N\N\N\N"
t_connect: An event requires attention
state is T_OUTCON reason is T_DISCONNECT
disconnect reason #115
Internal caller type TLI
tlicall: bound to  
t_connect to addr "\002\N\002o?\r\377\N\N\N\N\N\N\N\N"
t_connect: An event requires attention
state is T_OUTCON reason is T_DISCONNECT
disconnect reason #115
getto ret -1
Call Failed: NO DEVICES AVAILABLE
exit code 101
Conversation Complete: Status FAILED

TM_cnt: 0

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cleveland Hamnet BBS (440) 942-6382    http://junior.apk.net/~dforan/hamnet

Dave Foran telecommunicated (on 24Jan):
| I have been trying for quite some time to have my SCO 3.2v4.2 to commuicate
| to an AT&T 3b2/522 or 3b2/1000 uucp over tcp/ip at the tli level.
| I have the information from SCO at hand and and an item has me confused,
| that is "use a port not alrady used" and not port 540.

Just where do you see that suggestion?  What's wrong with 540, it's the
"well-known port" for uucp.

| I used the "suggested" sample port of 698. Other than entering the port
| into etc services, along with the rest of the supporting files, what next ?

Etc/services doesn't *do* anything.  It's a map of numbers to names and
vice-versa.

You need to have inetd listening on port 540, which it will do IFF
/etc/inetd.conf lists uucp.

--

Thanks for the reply!

Quote:>The soruce of info I am using is "How do I set up UUCP over TCP/IP
>with the Transport Layer Interface", as direct to by Bela Lubkin on
>http://www5.sco.com

>>| I used the "suggested" sample port of 698. Other than entering the port
>>| into etc services, along with the rest of the supporting files, what next
>?

>>Etc/services doesn't *do* anything.  It's a map of numbers to names and
>>vice-versa.

>>You need to have inetd listening on port 540, which it will do IFF
>>/etc/inetd.conf lists uucp.

What port is the 3b2 machine using.  Can the 3b2's talk to each other?
--
Do two rights make | Kevin Smith, ShadeTree Software, Philadelpha, PA, USA
a libertarian      | 001-215-487-3811  shady.com,kevin  bbs.cpcn.com,sysop

Quote:>Bela<

Quote:> I have been trying for quite some time to have my SCO 3.2v4.2 to
commuicate
> to an AT&T 3b2/522 or 3b2/1000 uucp over tcp/ip at the tli level.
> I have the information from SCO at hand and and an item has me confused,
> that is "use a port not alrady used" and not port 540.

uucpd requires a login to have uucico as its shell, so I cu and end up in
the middle of a uucp protocol handshake.

Can anyone offer advice?

We run an application that sends files over uucp, and optionally logs into
the remote system with cu. To make it work over a TCP connection, it seems
easiest to configure uucp rather than create a file queue/retry/polling
mechanism that uses FTP/telnet.

--
Colin J Denman

Colin J Denman telecommunicated (on 28Jan):
|
|

| > I have been trying for quite some time to have my SCO 3.2v4.2 to
| commuicate
| > to an AT&T 3b2/522 or 3b2/1000 uucp over tcp/ip at the tli level.
| > I have the information from SCO at hand and and an item has me confused,
| > that is "use a port not alrady used" and not port 540.
|
| I am trying to connect SCO 3.2v4.0 to UnixWare 2.0/1 systems over TCP. I
| can configure uucp for file transfers using the 3.2 uucpd facility, but I
| am having no luck getting cu configured to operate over the same
| Systems/Devices files entries. I believe I can set up alternative Systems
| files, but I wonder if I can use just a single entry.
|
| uucpd requires a login to have uucico as its shell, so I cu and end up in
| the middle of a uucp protocol handshake.
|
| We run an application that sends files over uucp, and optionally logs into
| the remote system with cu. To make it work over a TCP connection, it seems
| easiest to configure uucp rather than create a file queue/retry/polling
| mechanism that uses FTP/telnet.

Why use cu instead of telnet?

--

Colin J Denman telecommunicated (on 29Jan):
|
|


| > Why use cu instead of telnet?
| >
| Essentially because my existing application uses uucp/cu. It might be
| easier to make cu work over tcp rather than change the application. Any
| info greatfully received.

I'm afraid I don't get the point at all.

--