Re: New Assignment: AFTEK

[Alex Schuilenburg <alexs@ecoscentric.com>]

FYI, nothing further received on this assignment, which remains invalid.

-- Alex

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