There was a 3.5.103 that's newer and runs great. I didn't know about 3.5.105 until I saw Casen's email - but I just called to have Source-T send it to me. -----Original Message----- From: WebMaster [mailto:webmaster@floodcity.net] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:52 PM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [USR-TC] Please identify code running 3.5.105? I thought 3.5.100 was the newest DSP code. Or has there been another ER release? Thanks, Allen

And on an even sider side note:

Some people were recently asking about what codes to upgrade. We upgraded to the following code about two weeks ago and so far haven't experienced any problems for our users:

HiperNMC: 8.6.3 (Was 6.something) HiperARC: 5.3.3 (Was 5.0.9) HiperDSP: 3.5.105 (Was 2.0.19)

v.92 is enabled, and we have verified v.92 connections establish correctly. Also, we've done some extensive tests with Lucent WinModems, all of which connected solidly. Most customers/tests have reported/shown less line noise disconnects and slightly increased transfer speeds.

Just an FYI for the list.

-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Todd Bertolozzi Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:17 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] Please identify code running

On a side note....can you please indicate the code revision you are using when asking for help.

Todd

-----Original Message----- From: usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:usr-tc-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Lisa Casey Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:25 AM To: usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] Changed subject: listening on port 23

Hi Jeff,

I changed the subject on here, shoulda done that on my first post since I was changing the topic of the thread.

...

Weird...its like it should be in CLOSE_WAIT (I think that's what its called), but maybe the NETServer doesn't have a way to designate that state? That would be weird... not sure on this part.

I'ld have thought the same thing. Maybe since I did just clear a bunch of hung telnets the "listens" will eventually clear up on their own. I could probably clear them up by power cycling the box but won't do that since it would disconnect quite a few users :-)

...

520/udp is RIP routing protocol. Do you have routing turned on for that user?

Now this is what bothers me. Call me paranoid, but I'm always watching out for users doing weird things (or doing things that are against our Acceptable Use Policy). No, I don't have any kind of special routing turned on for any customer, they are all (except for a few ISDN users which this guy is not) normal 56K analog dial-ups authenticating via a standard implementation of Cistron Radius. Now I'm wondering what this guy is up to... (if anything).

Lisa Casey, Webmaster Netlink 2000, Inc. lisa@jellico.net

_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc