modems under delay not dropping DTR on 3003

[Rich Braun]

pensoft!robin writes:
>I have corresponded with Rich on this very subject and it appears to 
>me that he is using a back level "patch" that he is applying over the update.
>This is not a good thing to do.  (This is so far... PURE CONJECTURE ON MY  
>PART.)

This is getting tedious; I don't really like the tone of your entire posting.
Believe me, my system *does not work* even after looking at the guide
you so graciously provided and at the documentation provided by IBM.
The terminal line has 'hupcl' set and clocal not set.  The patch (IX11286)
is *clearly marked* by IBM as "for 3005 systems", and I am running 3005.
There is one inconsistency, though:  it also says "64-port fix" and I have
an 8-port card.
 
>As far a "DELAY" not being used for dial-ups, please stop spreading this nasty  
>rumor.  "DELAY" works fine with both dial-up and direct connect.

You should state this more clearly in the guide you put out; the way I
interpreted it, the 'getty' program will do the wrong thing by locking
the port if 'delay' is set and a character is received.  *Most* modems
these days will send characters at numerous points when carrier detect
is not present.  This needs to be spelled out in any documentation on
the subject.  Your document clearly implies that getty ignores carrier
detect in making the decision to lock the port, if 'delay' is selected.

>You call 1-800-237-5511.  I think you are wasting your time, this is not a  
>software defect.     Sorry.

It need not be a software defect in order to be a major hassle for me.
There are numerous line-control parameters which may not be set correctly,
and I have yet to learn any means of fixing the problem.  Therefore there
*is* a problem with the software, the documentation, or (more likely) both.

Please understand my point of view.

thanks,
-rich