From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4306 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 09:02:12 -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 4297 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 09:02:11 -0000 Message-ID: <413D7895.1020008@ecoscentric.com> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:02:00 -0000 From: Alex Schuilenburg Organization: eCosCentric Limited User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: New Assignment: AFTEK X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 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