gmane.network.beep.beepcore.c.general archive

305 archived articles, newest first (page 2 of 4). Latest articles →

Re: BEEPD clashes in Solaris 2.6
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:21:24 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #206
BEEPD clashes in Solaris 2.6
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:51:42 +0800
"Guan Wee LOO" <[email protected]> • #205
Re: Listener in CLOSE_WAIT (Darren New)
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:35:50 +0800
"Guan Wee LOO" <[email protected]> • #204
Re: Listener in CLOSE_WAIT
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:02:24 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #203
Re: Listener in CLOSE_WAIT
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:03:14 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #202
Listener in CLOSE_WAIT
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:39:27 +0800
"Guan Wee LOO" <[email protected]> • #201
Re: Connection-level initialization on initiator side?
Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:09:37 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #200
Connection-level initialization on initiator side?
Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #199
Re: bpc_send semantics and per-channel application-specific data?
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:37:12 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #198
Re: bpc_send semantics and per-channel application-specific data?
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:03:42 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #197
Re: bpc_send semantics and per-channel application-specific data?
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:21:56 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #196
Re: bpc_send semantics and per-channel application-specific data?
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:50:50 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #195
bpc_send semantics and per-channel application-specific data?
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #194
Re: Which comes first, pro_start_confirmation or pro_start_callback?
Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:55:28 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #193
Re: Which comes first, pro_start_confirmation or pro_start_callback?
Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #192
Re: Which comes first, pro_start_confirmation or pro_start_callback?
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:23:05 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #191
Which comes first, pro_start_confirmation or pro_start_callback?
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:24:46 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #190
Re: Message timeouts?
Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:33:30 -0600
"Huston" <[email protected]> • #189
Re: Message timeouts?
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:06:20 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #188
Re: Message timeouts?
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:08:37 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #187
Message timeouts?
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:50:07 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #186
Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c -- More Info
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:33:11 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #185
FreeBSD port checked in
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:06:47 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #184
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:12:24 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #183
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:56:38 -0700
Marshall Rose <[email protected]> • #182
building and running examples
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:51:30 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #181
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:14:35 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #180
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:48:43 -0700
Marshall Rose <[email protected]> • #179
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #178
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:07:46 -0700
Marshall Rose <[email protected]> • #177
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:00:15 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #176
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:19:59 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #175
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:05:12 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #174
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:55:49 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #173
Re: freebsd port
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:05:03 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #172
freebsd port
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:53:55 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #171
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:53:36 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #170
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:58:36 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #169
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:29:39 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #168
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:02:02 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #167
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:07:27 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #166
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:21:06 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #165
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:10:39 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #164
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:29:38 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #163
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:31:16 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #162
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:53:39 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #161
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:37:37 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #160
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:55:08 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #159
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:31:45 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #158
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #157
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:46:57 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #156
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:28:32 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #155
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:46:45 -0700
Darren New <[email protected]> • #154
Re: Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:43:30 -0700
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #153
Unnecessary Frame Fragmentation using beepcore-c?
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
David C Niemi <[email protected]> • #152
beepng testfile hangs when using tls
Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:35:48 +0530 (IST)
Srinivas <[email protected]> • #151
Interest in Another c++ Stack?
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:27:59 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #150
BEEP Example in C/C++
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:40:05 -0400
"Qian, Liqun" <[email protected]> • #149
Crash when re-using message number
Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:32:39 +1000
Sam Couter <[email protected]> • #148
Re: Starting with beepcore-c
Thu, 03 Apr 2003 20:31:53 -0500
Chris Hanson <[email protected]> • #147
Re: Re: Starting with beepcore-c
Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:21:46 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #146
Re: Re: Starting with beepcore-c
Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:51:44 +0200
Sean de Kock <[email protected]> • #145
Re: Re: Starting with beepcore-c
Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:45:00 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #144
Re: Starting with beepcore-c
Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:37:54 +0200
Sean de Kock <[email protected]> (by way of Sean de Kock <[email protected]>) (by way of Sean de Kock <[email protected]>) (by way of Sean de Kock <[email protected]>) (by way of Sean de Kock <[email protected]>) • #143
Re: Starting with beepcore-c
Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:58:18 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #142
Starting with beepcore-c
Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:40:15 +0200
"De Kock SJ <[email protected]>" <[email protected]> • #141
File transfer
Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:07:30 -0500 (EST)
"WAYNE IRONS, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN" <[email protected]> • #140
Re: Beepcore-c and MIME
Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:49:21 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #139
Beepcore-c and MIME
Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:16:06 -0500 (EST)
"WAYNE IRONS, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN" <[email protected]> • #138
Re: File transfer
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:44:35 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #137
Re: File transfer
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:53:50 -0800
Darren New <[email protected]> • #136
File transfer
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:43:48 -0500 (EST)
"WAYNE IRONS, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN" <[email protected]> • #135
Re: Is beepcore-c still alive? What happened to Huston?
Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:16:14 -0700
"Huston" <[email protected]> • #134
Re: Is beepcore-c still alive? What happened to Huston?
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:16:17 +0100
Wolfgang Spraul <[email protected]> • #133
Re: Is beepcore-c still alive? What happened to Huston?
18 Feb 2003 23:33:08 +0100
Jonas Borgström <[email protected]> • #132
Is beepcore-c still alive? What happened to Huston?
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:32:43 -0500
Chris Hanson <[email protected]> • #131
Re: Is beepcore-c still alive? What happened to Huston?
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:19:33 +0100
Wolfgang Spraul <[email protected]> • #130
Is beepcore-c still alive? What happened to Huston?
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:52:42 +0100
Wolfgang Spraul <[email protected]> • #129
sample programs hanging
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:03:46 +0000
Andy Walshe <[email protected]> • #128
Follow up on threading
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:58:50 -0000
"Des Smith" <[email protected]> • #127
Apps using BEEP?
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:19:21 +0100
"Bjoern Latte" <[email protected]> • #126
Re: Apps using BEEP?
Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:32:33 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #125
Apps using BEEP?
Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:31:27 +0100
"Bjoern Latte" <[email protected]> • #124
Profile creation trouble.
Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:51:06 -0500 (EST)
"WAYNE IRONS, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN" <[email protected]> • #123
Re: Two way channel roles?
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:19:23 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #122
[Fwd: Re: Two way channel roles?]
Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:50:40 -0800
Darren New <[email protected]> • #121
Re: Two way channel roles?
Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:08:59 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #120
Two way channel roles?
Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:08:40 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #119
Re: beep file descriptors not being closed
Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:09:25 -0800
"William J. Mills" <[email protected]> • #118
Re: beep file descriptors not being closed
Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:59:21 +0000
Andy Walshe <[email protected]> • #117
Re: autoconf, Visual C++ and current CVS build?
Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:33:14 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #116
Client hangs/crashes when server goes down unexpectedly
Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:26:21 -0000
Helen Ryan <[email protected]> • #115
RE: Threading issue
Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:57:50 -0000
Helen Ryan <[email protected]> • #114
RE: autoconf, Visual C++ and current CVS build?
Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:47:23 +0100
"Rainer Gerhards" <[email protected]> • #113
RE: autoconf, Visual C++ and current CVS build?
Fri, 27 Dec 2002 08:08:12 +0100
"Rainer Gerhards" <[email protected]> • #112
Re: autoconf, Visual C++ and current CVS build?
Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:29:10 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #111
Threading issue
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:56:03 -0500
Chris Hanson <[email protected]> • #110
autoconf, Visual C++ and current CVS build?
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:54:04 -0500
Chris Hanson <[email protected]> • #109
autoconf, Visual C++ and current CVS build?
Wed, 25 Dec 2002 11:21:46 +0800
Andy Dent <[email protected]> • #108
RE: Threading issue
Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:52:03 -0000
Helen Ryan <[email protected]> • #107
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.