Re: gEDA-user: Schottky diode?

[al davis <ad106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the reply..  Without feedback things don't improve.

On Thursday 19 October 2006 14:22, John Coppens wrote:
> 1) On the GNU site, the latest distro is 0.31 and no
> indication that newer versions exist. I can't compile this
> version...

I know about that one.  I guess it is somewhat like the multiple 
PCB sites.  I almost have it fixed.  After I do, I will explain 
what happened.  It's not pretty.

The primary site is gnucap.org.  The GNU site is supposed to be 
a CVS checkin of gnucap.org, but, like I say I will explain it 
after it gets fixed.

> 2) Only later I detected 0.35 on the seul site.

> This version stops compiling when there is a problem with the
> documentation tools.

What are the error messages?  Did you try 
using "./configure.old" instead of "./configure"?

> I had to go into each directory and 
> compile the model compiler and gnucap separately. That
> worked.

> 3) Gnucap fails on my output.net file, reporting problems
> such as:
>
> * gnetlist -g spice-sdb switch1.sch
>   egnd 99  0 poly(2) (3,0) (4,0) 0 .5 .5
>                      ^ ? need 1 more nodes

etc....

I see ...  Can you send me the netlist?

Two things I know of:  High order polys and jfets.



In this case, you have hit a couple of things that are 
implemented in ngspice but not gnucap.  I have seen it go the 
other way too.  When I see these things from users, they become 
priorities.  The to-do list is infinitely long, as you might 
expect.

> 4) Your mail server rejected my direct mail to you with the
> message:
>
> <ad106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: host
> flint.freeelectron.net[68.61.120.207] refused to talk to me:
> 550 HELO argument does not match calling host
>
> This is probably an anti-spam measure, but it is the first
> time I had this type of reject.

It is an anti-spam measure, that usually works very well, with 
very few false positives, and gives a proper bounce on false 
positives, rather than just throwing it away.

It also exposes ISP's that do not configure their mail relay 
correctly.  Basically, what it says is that your mail relay is 
not what it says it is.  It presents false identification.  
Most spam looks like this.

There are 3 strategies used for spam control ...

1. Identity checking ....  Check to see if the sender is really 
who he says he is.  Your ISP presents false identification.  
Very few ISP's do this.  Also, check to see if the delivery 
agent is authorized to deliver mail from you.  Very few ISP's 
do this.

2. "Redlining".   Check to see if the mail comes from a "bad 
neighborhood".  Reject if it does.  This is the primary defense 
used by AOL and similar providers.  It tends to catch the same 
ones as identity checking, but in a more corporate friendly 
manner.  That is, it avoids embarrasing large providers with 
incompetent administrators, and discriminates against small 
sites.  Most small sites that encounter this automatically try 
again with laundering (pass through an agent that is friendly 
to them) and get though, or they just launder everything and 
loose tracking of their mail.

3.  "Censorship" ...  They look at the content and reject 
anything with content they don't like.  This is the second 
defense used by many providers.  It scares me more than spam.


gnu.org uses another method, which is completely ineffective:  
Ask:  "will you accept mail from me?"   There are some 
providers that reject gnu by redlining.  Gnu, in retaliation, 
rejects mail from them.  It is annoying, and accomplishes 
nothing in reducing spam.







_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user