GRI NOS v1.8c bugs

[Murray_RJ@cc.curtin.edu.au]

Hi Gerard. I've found a couple of problems in v1.8c of NOS, so far all in
mailbox.c. The mailbox expert code wasn't working properly, and the sysop
command code is also incorrect. Here's some fixes:

** mailbox.c **

in mbx_incom(),

Line 741 was:
                m->sid ^= MBX_EXPERT;
probably should be:
                m->sid |= MBX_EXPERT;

   At least I think it should be this way. I could be wrong -- it's a bit late
at night!

Line 775 was:
        tprintf((m->sid & MBX_SID) ? ">\n" : Mbmenu, m->current);
should be:
        tprintf((m->sid & MBX_EXPERT) ? ">\n" : Mbmenu, m->current);

   This allows the mailbox 'X' command to actually display expert prompts
after the first one. (m->sid & MBX_SID) will always be false since it's
the subject of an if statement in the current block.

in dosysop(),

line 1461 was:
        tputs("\n\aType 'exit' to return\n\nBe VERY carefull!!\n");
should be:
        tputs("\n\aType 'exit' to return\n\nBe VERY careful!!\n");

   All right, I'm probably nitpicking a bit here. I realise that English is
not your first language, but it would be nice if we could have 'careful' spelt
correctly.

lines 1470-1471 were:
                if(cmdparse(Cmds,m->line,NULL) == -2);
                        break;
should be:
                if(cmdparse(Cmds,m->line,NULL) == -2)
                        break;

   I'm not sure exactly what's going on here. In the history file you say
something about only allowing one sysop command at a time: IMHO that's
a bit useless, and really won't stop the determined clown. Sometimes, too,
it's handy to be able to send several commands in succession. In any case,
the ; at the end of the first line is spurious: if we're not going to allow
more than one command then we don't need the 'if' part (just cmdparse()),
followed by a break.

   I also had a report last night from a user who is still using v1.7j -- I
haven't distributed the new code yet; takes a long time at 1200 baud :-( --
telling me that the msgidcheck() code didn't reject duplicate bulletins. I've
had a bit of a look at the code, and it LOOKS ok, but I'll investigate further
over the weekend. Has anyone else seen this problem?

 .....Ron

--
                                 ***
 Ron Murray
 Internet: Murray_RJ@cc.curtin.edu.au
     Are we having fun yet?    -- Garfield