Re: New Assignment: AFTEK

Re: New Assignment: AFTEK

[Alex Schuilenburg]

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

Re: New Assignment: AFTEK

[Alex Schuilenburg]

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

Re: New Assignment: AFTEK

[Jonathan Larmour]

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.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: New Assignment: AFTEK

[Andrew Lunn]

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. 

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.

     Andrew

New Assignment: AFTEK

[Alex Schuilenburg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 237 bytes --]

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.

-- Alex



[-- Attachment #2: RFX00081.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 42292 bytes --]