From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
From: John Murdie <john@cs.york.ac.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Cc: john@cs.york.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <20030620103102.A1097@sigint.cs.purdue.edu>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10306191433360.6964-100000@cleese.nas.com>
	 <1056097208.28648.170.camel@pc118>
	 <20030620103102.A1097@sigint.cs.purdue.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1056129899.28648.279.camel@pc118>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:24:59 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d3edea98-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 16:31, splite@purdue.edu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:20:08AM +0100, John Murdie wrote:
> >
> > For a start, lpr (more properly the RFC1179 Berkeley print) protocol
> > allows only a success/fail result; there's nowhere to put error or
> > informational messages in the protocol.
>
> Sure there is; the return value is an octet.  They had 255 possible failure
> codes, but the BSD implementation returns 001 on error regardless of the
> cause.  They could have at least distinguished transient (e.g. no spool
> space) versus permanent (no such queue) errors.

Thank you for being more precise about this than I was!