Martin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03.12.05:
> On the 03.12.05 at 14:26, Michael Heydekamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Did UKAW complain?
> It complained about being out of environment space, that's all.
>> My impression from your initial post was that it did simply nothing.
> Yes, that's right.
Well, complaining about low environment space is a bit more than just
'nothing'... ;-) Would you have pointed this out in your initial post,
I might have got the right clue right from the beginning. We had a
thread in d.c.s.c about this already and I thought you might have
noticed it.
I wonder what UKAW has to do with environment space, but well...
>> After applying it, you should send 'clean' RFC headers as with other
>> clients.
> OK, I've applied it prior to writing this message so let's see what
> happens :)
Looks good to me. :)
> I really must update our English support site with all this valuable
> information that you've given me. Once again, many thanks.
It's probably a bit early for that. We are still waiting for a reaction
from Thomas Gohel if he's gonna change UKAW's behaviour in terms of
opening XP.EXE in R/W mode. If yes, we can release future FreeXP
versions with EXE/OVR in one file as default (and offer an alternative
FreeXP version with EXE/OVR in two files for users who are using it with
older UKAW versions).
If not, we have to think how to proceed. Then it might be the better
idea to release the two-file-version as default. I'm not that much
interested in constant user complaints about UKAW not working with
FreeXP anymore...
Opening XP.EXE in R/W mode is an extremely bad idea, but as long as
there is no UKAW version availaible which does not do that, we simply
have to live with it.
Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeXP Support-Mailingliste
[email protected]
http://www.freexp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support-list
