From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19206 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2004 10:49:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19199 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2004 10:49:37 -0000 Message-ID: <40DFF7BA.8080902@ecoscentric.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:49:00 -0000 From: Alex Schuilenburg Organization: eCosCentric Limited User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: Andrew Lunn , ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: New Assignment: AFTEK References: <40DFD273.6010104@ecoscentric.com> <20040628082518.GA1435@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> <40DFF4EA.3040207@eCosCentric.com> In-Reply-To: <40DFF4EA.3040207@eCosCentric.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:10:27AM +0100, Alex Schuilenburg wrote: >> >>> Attached. >>> >>> And before anyone asks, this is all that was sent in two seperate 1 >>> page faxes. The fax was stored electronically so the address >>> resolution is a result of the sender's fax scanner. No list of files >>> was provided. >> >> >> >> Mostly useless... >> >> We need to track down what this is for. I've no idea. It does not fit >> to any contribution i know of which is in the pipeline. > > > Ah, no I know this one (and you can see - barely - my name at the top of > the first page). It's this contrib: > http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1000068 > which doesn't contain Aftek either. > >> Googling for "aftek infosys eCos" only produces two old hits. If you >> can make out the senders FAX numbers could you send a FAX back asking >> them to telephone/email you so we can get this straightened out. > > > I'll follow up by e-mail directly. Ack! I assume you are going to ask for a second fax with the contents. For the doc to be legal, the address should be clearly visible, which it is not in this case. For now though, a fax should do until we receive the original via post when this is should not be an issue since I assume it is legible there :-) -- Alex