I have now gotten over 50 bounced messages. PLEASE STOP THEM! Jim included message:
The original message was received at Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:37:39 -0500 from mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <mmell> (expanded from: <mmell>)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 Too many hops 26 (25 max): from <alfiesty@chaffee.net> via localhost, to <mmell>
----- Original message follows -----
Return-Path: <alfiesty@chaffee.net> Received: from ntsrv1 (mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmell.empros.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA02792 for <mmell>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:37:39 -0500 Received: from eaugalle.empros.com ([161.134.1.6]) by ntsrv1.empros.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id JKRSLP0Y; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:39:46 -0500 Received: from mmell.empros.com (mmell.empros.com [161.134.124.82]) by eaugalle.empros.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26496 for <mmell@eaugalle.empros.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:39:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ntsrv1 (mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmell.empros.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA08571 for <mmell>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:39:01 -0500 Received: from eaugalle.empros.com ([161.134.1.6]) by ntsrv1.empros.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id JKRSLPSH; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:26:41 -0500 Received: from mmell.empros.com (mmell.empros.com [161.134.124.82]) by eaugalle.empros.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA24624 for <mmell@eaugalle.empros.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:26:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ntsrv1 (mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmell.empros.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA06525 for <mmell>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:25:22 -0500 Received: from eaugalle.empros.com ([161.134.1.6]) by ntsrv1.empros.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id JKRSL303; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:12:23 -0500 Received: from mmell.empros.com (mmell.empros.com [161.134.124.82]) by eaugalle.empros.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14616 for <mmell@eaugalle.empros.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:11:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ntsrv1 (mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmell.empros.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04493 for <mmell>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:11:19 -0500 Received: from eaugalle.empros.com ([161.134.1.6]) by ntsrv1.empros.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id JKRSL38G; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:09:32 -0500 Received: from mmell.empros.com (mmell.empros.com [161.134.124.82]) by eaugalle.empros.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA30184 for <mmell@eaugalle.empros.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:08:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ntsrv1 (mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmell.empros.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03675 for <mmell>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:03:35 -0500 Received: from eaugalle.empros.com ([161.134.1.6]) by ntsrv1.empros.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id JKRSL33Z; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:57:39 -0500 Received: from mmell.empros.com (mmell.empros.com [161.134.124.82]) by eaugalle.empros.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06464 for <mmell@eaugalle.empros.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:57:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ntsrv1.empros.com (mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmell.empros.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03072 for <mmell>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:56:23 -0500 Received: from eaugalle.empros.com ([161.134.1.6]) by ntsrv1.empros.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id JKRSL3HY; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:44:41 -0500 Received: from mmell.empros.com (mmell.empros.com [161.134.124.82]) by eaugalle.empros.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13658 for <mmell@eaugalle.empros.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:44:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ntsrv1.empros.com (mmell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmell.empros.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00989 for <mmell>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:43:41 -0500 Received: from eaugalle.empros.com ([161.134.1.6]) by ntsrv1.empros.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id JKRSL2XT; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:51:33 -0500 Received: from Goldengate.suse.com (goldengate.suse.com [209.0.51.1]) by eaugalle.empros.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA27418 for <mmell@siemens-psc.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:50:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by Goldengate.suse.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA12554; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:58:16 -0700 Received: by Goldengate.suse.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:58:16 -0700 Received: (from mdom@localhost) by Goldengate.suse.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12550 for suse-linux-e-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:58:15 -0700 Received: from castle.chaffee.net (root@castle.chaffee.net [206.162.103.10]) by Goldengate.suse.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA12546 for <suse-linux-e@suse.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:58:12 -0700 Received: from jim [206.162.103.84] with smtp by castle.chaffee.net with smtp (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #3 #3) id m0yRSIL-0017ULC; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:56:25 -0600 (MDT) X-Envelope-To: <mmell@siemens-psc.com> Message-Id: <<A HREF="msg00461.html">3.0.1.32.19980420195033.00800100@chaffee.net</A>> X-Sender: alfiesty@chaffee.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:50:33 -0600 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com From: Jim Hodgers <alfiesty@chaffee.net> Subject: [S.u.S.E. Linux] Tkman in SuSe 5.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-suse-linux-e@suse.com Reply-To: suse-linux-e@suse.com X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e X-Fetchmail-Warning: no recipient addresses matched declared local names X-Fetchmail-Warning: no recipient addresses matched declared local names X-Fetchmail-Warning: no recipient addresses matched declared local names X-Fetchmail-Warning: no recipient addresses matched declared local names
I am still learning Linux. I have fvwm95 running fairly well and am trying various programs on the 5.1 disk set. I started TkDesk and then Tkman. When Tkman came up it said that it was updating the database. 26 HOURS later it was still not done! At that time according to the little performance monitor it was using 100 I hear all this talk about how much faster Linux is than W95, but I have NEVER has a process take 26 hours on any W95 machine I have. The box in question is a Cyrix NX586-90 with 32M, 64M swap and a HP 1.3Gig HD. What was it doing for 26 hours? Jim
-- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
-- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e