Thanks for the reply.. Without feedback things don't improve. On Thursday 19 October 2006 14:22, John Coppens wrote: > 1) On the GNU site, the latest distro is 0.31 and no > indication that newer versions exist. I can't compile this > version...
I know about that one. I guess it is somewhat like the multiple PCB sites. I almost have it fixed. After I do, I will explain what happened. It's not pretty. The primary site is gnucap.org. The GNU site is supposed to be a CVS checkin of gnucap.org, but, like I say I will explain it after it gets fixed. > 2) Only later I detected 0.35 on the seul site. > This version stops compiling when there is a problem with the > documentation tools. What are the error messages? Did you try using "./configure.old" instead of "./configure"? > I had to go into each directory and > compile the model compiler and gnucap separately. That > worked. > 3) Gnucap fails on my output.net file, reporting problems > such as: > > * gnetlist -g spice-sdb switch1.sch > egnd 99 0 poly(2) (3,0) (4,0) 0 .5 .5 > ^ ? need 1 more nodes etc.... I see ... Can you send me the netlist? Two things I know of: High order polys and jfets. In this case, you have hit a couple of things that are implemented in ngspice but not gnucap. I have seen it go the other way too. When I see these things from users, they become priorities. The to-do list is infinitely long, as you might expect. > 4) Your mail server rejected my direct mail to you with the > message: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host > flint.freeelectron.net[68.61.120.207] refused to talk to me: > 550 HELO argument does not match calling host > > This is probably an anti-spam measure, but it is the first > time I had this type of reject. It is an anti-spam measure, that usually works very well, with very few false positives, and gives a proper bounce on false positives, rather than just throwing it away. It also exposes ISP's that do not configure their mail relay correctly. Basically, what it says is that your mail relay is not what it says it is. It presents false identification. Most spam looks like this. There are 3 strategies used for spam control ... 1. Identity checking .... Check to see if the sender is really who he says he is. Your ISP presents false identification. Very few ISP's do this. Also, check to see if the delivery agent is authorized to deliver mail from you. Very few ISP's do this. 2. "Redlining". Check to see if the mail comes from a "bad neighborhood". Reject if it does. This is the primary defense used by AOL and similar providers. It tends to catch the same ones as identity checking, but in a more corporate friendly manner. That is, it avoids embarrasing large providers with incompetent administrators, and discriminates against small sites. Most small sites that encounter this automatically try again with laundering (pass through an agent that is friendly to them) and get though, or they just launder everything and loose tracking of their mail. 3. "Censorship" ... They look at the content and reject anything with content they don't like. This is the second defense used by many providers. It scares me more than spam. gnu.org uses another method, which is completely ineffective: Ask: "will you accept mail from me?" There are some providers that reject gnu by redlining. Gnu, in retaliation, rejects mail from them. It is annoying, and accomplishes nothing in reducing spam. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user