On 9/17/19 9:41 PM, Ulf Brosziewski wrote: > Hi Adam, > > thanks for the report and offering help. Mikal has already made some tests. > It turned out that this isn't only a problem of protocol handling. It
For the record: This assessment was wrong. Revision 1.90 of pms.c should fix the problem. > seems pms(4) receives input that hasn't the faintest resemblance to the > protocol as I know it, and I'm afraid that more email debugging may be too > time-consuming and lead to nothing. If Mikal's case is no exception, then > it might be best for now to revert the pms patch from August, at least > partially. > > Regards, > Ulf > > On 9/16/19 8:45 PM, Adam Wolk wrote: >> >> I have a lenovo G50-70 that exposes the exact same issue. >> [...] > >
