1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 01 Oct 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 543       Contents: Re: affordable VMS Re: affordable VMS Re: affordable VMS RE: Alpha Port Re: Anonymous FTP configuration ! Re: BACKUP Throughput measurement 2 Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create?2 Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create?@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)@ Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)
 Re: IMACRO! ITRC Download site - some answers % Re: ITRC Download site - some answers 4 Re: map port 21 from XP gateway to VMS intranet box? Re: New round of cuts at HP  Re: New round of cuts at HP  Re: New round of cuts at HP  Re: New round of cuts at HP  Re: Nice touch, AMD ! Re: non-interactive audio capture % Re: OT: Talk about bad luck (Halifax) % Re: OT: Talk about bad luck (Halifax) % Re: OT: Talk about bad luck (Halifax) ; Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED ? Re: Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED D Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?D Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?D Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?D Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?* Prohibiting use of microsoft address books< Re: Question: In DCL Can One Check To See If A File Is Open? Re: RSX.EXE under OpenVMS 7.3? rsync for OpenVMS? Re: rsync for OpenVMS? Re: rsync for OpenVMS? Re: rsync for OpenVMS? Sun takes a hit  Re: Sun takes a hit  Testeo de News9 Re: UCX Ping can't be used by user with NETBMX and TMPMBX  Re: Virtul Tape Driver! VMS graphics monitors for dummies % Re: VMS graphics monitors for dummies % Re: VMS graphics monitors for dummies 2 RE: VMS Technical Update seminar (the Netherlands). Re: VMS731_DISMOU-V0100 - What are the issues? Re: [5] Counter Googling :-( Re: [5] Counter Googling :-(E [OT] Misleading article in NY Times re security and operating systems   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 30 Sep 2003 12:52:44 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)  Subject: Re: affordable VMS = Message-ID: <cf15391e.0309301152.2ca22f4c@posting.google.com>   v koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote in message news:<bMlR5crgRxDb@eisner.encompasserve.org>...= >   How's $5K hit ya?  A developer's platform, with software.  > G >   No, that's not an official price quote, just something I'm hearing.   - From the latest issue of the DSPP newsletter:   F "New and Improved Equipment Program Benefits for DSPP Members in North America   > The DSPP Equipment Program is pleased to announce exciting new$ discounts and offerings for members: ... F   o  OpenVMS I64 Itanium2 server bundle- Special pricing at under $5K"   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:55:35 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: affordable VMS ' Message-ID: <3F7A2607.39D12B9B@fsi.net>    Keith Parris wrote:  > x > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote in message news:<bMlR5crgRxDb@eisner.encompasserve.org>...? > >   How's $5K hit ya?  A developer's platform, with software.  > > I > >   No, that's not an official price quote, just something I'm hearing.  > / > From the latest issue of the DSPP newsletter:  > H > "New and Improved Equipment Program Benefits for DSPP Members in North	 > America  > @ > The DSPP Equipment Program is pleased to announce exciting new& > discounts and offerings for members: > ... H >   o  OpenVMS I64 Itanium2 server bundle- Special pricing at under $5K"   Well, fine for DSPP members.  " Now: what can we do for end-users?  C (You remember end users, right? ...the people who make DSPP members 
 possible?)   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Sep 2003 23:16:28 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)  Subject: Re: affordable VMS 3 Message-ID: <$m2MhdUJRCeq@eisner.encompasserve.org>   q In article <cf15391e.0309301152.2ca22f4c@posting.google.com>, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes: x > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote in message news:<bMlR5crgRxDb@eisner.encompasserve.org>...> >>   How's $5K hit ya?  A developer's platform, with software. >>  H >>   No, that's not an official price quote, just something I'm hearing. > / > From the latest issue of the DSPP newsletter:  > H > "New and Improved Equipment Program Benefits for DSPP Members in North	 > America  > @ > The DSPP Equipment Program is pleased to announce exciting new& > discounts and offerings for members: > ... H >   o  OpenVMS I64 Itanium2 server bundle- Special pricing at under $5K"  A So what machine is that ?   DSPP does not seem to be able to send , VMSmail compatible email nor US mail at all.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:35:11 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>  Subject: RE: Alpha Port R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB0D877E@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   >=20 > -----Original Message-----1 > From: Mike Rieker [mailto:mrieker@o3one.org]=20 # > Sent: September 30, 2003 10:44 AM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  >=20( > It works!  OZONE is officially 64-bit!, > www.o3one.org and www.o3one.org/alpha.html >=20A > Haven't beat on it yet and I'm sure there's plenty of little=20 B > things to fix, but it loads and runs the shell and I can type=20A > in commands.  Next I have to check out the utilities and get=20  > GCC, etc. ported.  >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20   Mike,   G Just curious, but are you using any of the GNV features in your porting  effort?   & http://h71000.www7.hp.com/portability/  ; http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/porting.html    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  Email: kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom . (remove the DOT's and AT for email address)=20   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:22:52 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) ( Subject: Re: Anonymous FTP configuration1 Message-ID: <M%peb.6054$vE1.176@news.cpqcorp.net>   s In article <bjsruq$9e9$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, DAVISM@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael T. Davis) writes:  : @ :  Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.1 - ECO 34 :  on a AlphaServer 800 5/500 running OpenVMS V7.2-1 : E :	Should TCPIP$FTP_ANONYMOUS_DIRECTORY be defined as a search list or  :a comma-separated string?    6   $ define/system/exec TCPIP$FTP_ANONYMOUS_DIRECTORY -*       top:[000000...], bottom:[spin...], -0       charmed:[boson...], strange:[000000...], -	       ...   D   You can access the [anonymous] directory regardless of the settingD   of the logical name.  (If you don't want that, you'll want to take"   steps to protect the directory.)  C   Various of the processing and logical names are documented in the D   Anonymous section of the TCP/IP Services Management manual chapter   on the FTP Server.  J http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/73final/6526/6526pro_028.html#anon_ftp_sect     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:12:30 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> * Subject: Re: BACKUP Throughput measurement' Message-ID: <3F7A29FE.858CB6F1@fsi.net>    William Webb wrote:  > d > Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> wrote in message news:<3F789DB5.399FD462@sture.homeip.net>... > > John Brandon wrote:  > > > Q > > > I have a backup application using the VMS BACKUP utility.  OK, it is just a P > > > bunch of command files that use scripts to backup the disks.  No big deal. > > > S > > > However, I have always wanted to measure the throughput of the BACKUP utility 9 > > > and wanted to know if anyone is doing this and how.  > > > % > > > At current, I do the following:  > > >  > > > $!) > > > $ starttime = f$cvtime(,"ABSOLUTE") 6 > > > $ freeblocks = f$getdvi(bup_device,"FREEBLOCKS")2 > > > $ maxblock = f$getdvi(bup_device,"MAXBLOCK")* > > > $ usedblocks = maxblock - freeblocks > > > $! > > > $ backup ... > > > $!' > > > $ endtime = f$cvtime(,"ABSOLUTE")  > > > $! > > > T > > > I take the delta of start and end time and using the number of usedblocks I amR > > > able to (roughly) calculate the throughput.  It may not be exact, however itM > > > does provide me with a value with which I can make general esitmates of  > > > throughput.  > > > B > > > Anyone else do something different?  Just kind of curious... > > >  > > C > > I do my backups with a /LIST=filename, and keep the listings on F > > disk. I have a procedure which extracts the file and block counts,J > > and compares the creation and modification dates of the listing files. > > F > > I'd have to dig into the code for further details, as it's several > > years since I wrote it.  > > E > > BTW, keeping the listing files on disk is extremely handy when it L > > comes to restoring files from a multivolume tape set, as you can quicklyI > > locate which tape(s) the required files are on, and skip any previous 
 > > tapes. > F > I use Archive Backup System (ABS) from HP, so I don't have to bother > with things like /LIST.  > > > It's a terrific product, feature-rich, steep learning curve.  H Did you have the predecessor - SLS? If so, can you offer any comparison?  G I see ABS as a rather large step backward from SLS; so, I'm looking for  another opinion.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:06:22 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> ; Subject: Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create? ' Message-ID: <3F7A288E.E7067C5C@fsi.net>    jlsue wrote: > [snip]2 > One of the biggest benefits of EVA, imho, [snip] > = > The impact depends on each specific environment, of course.   G I still haven't even seen an EVA (probably won't unless I can go to the F bootcamp in November), I've only read about them here in the group and on-line at hp's website.  F So far, it all seems to add a lot of questionably necessary complexityE for very little improvement. Seems to me one can do better laying out H RAIDsets on HSxes one's self and avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned byA yourself and other posters. Add to that the fact the HSxes can be C commanded in batch jobs via HSDSA or HSZPAD$SCSITERM and it seems a  negative gain.  G Are there any advantages to EVA that can't be realized by judicious use  of the preceding technologies?   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:43:32 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>; Subject: Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create? 2 Message-ID: <9nqdnaOt0M_ZrOeiXTWJjg@metrocast.net>  3 "jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 2 news:sc5jnvk7pbl7evqc98irhm02g1h1jqtdam@4ax.com...E > On 28 Sep 2003 08:42:15 GMT, yehavi@vms.huji.ac.il (Yehavi Bourvine  > (58-4279)) wrote:  > J > >> Bottom line:  create one big disk group (ours is currently 168 *146GBK > >> drives - total usable space is 22TB) and carve as  many 1TB drives out I > >> of that as you need.  If you are truly worried about I/O bottleneck, H > >> make sure you convert your SAN to 2GB and I doubt you could keep it busy...  > > L > >I had a paper written by DEC/HPQ (don't have it in front of me now) whichF > >states that by experiments they found that adding drives to a group
 raises theK > >total throughput up to 20 drives; adding more drives does not change the  total G > >throughput; hence, I would create disk groups of around 20 disks per  group. > >Just my thoughts...   ...   B > One big trade-off to having 20-disks per group is that you lose:. > -  capacity, more spares needed, for example  L It would be kind of surprising if the EVA couldn't maintain a common reserveH of spares (exactly as many as it would use for one big group) and parcel7 them out to whichever group(s) needed them as required.   * > -  spindles available for load balancing  B 20 contemporary disks streaming full-tilt yield around 1 GB/sec ofI bandwidth, but I suppose for applications for which that isn't sufficient  you might have a problem.   J The same 20 disks yield well over 2000 IOPS for small requests (neglectingB any further improvements due to EVA caching), which is also fairlyL respectable, though probably considerably less close to the box's limit than# their streaming bandwidth would be.   G And, of course, in both cases it would presumably be possible to stripe K RAID-0-style across multiple 20-disk groups to obtain both the IOPS and the J bandwidth of the 'one big group' approach without the measurable reductionJ in availability that I suspect using one big group entails.  Come to thinkG of it, one might expect the EVA to provide such an option as a default.   D > -  administration time - takes more work to manage multiple groups  F Something the EVA is supposed to pretty much optimize away, I believe.  9 > -  flexibility - capacity reallocation, snapshots, etc,   H That would seem to depend upon just how suave the EVA is about providingJ such facilities across multiple groups (that may be RAID-zeroed together).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:28:29 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <3F79D95B.371B6BD2@istop.com>    John Vottero wrote: K > It's trivial for a person to send your web server a spoofed packet with a 3 > bogus source IP address and a source port of 25.    N How trivial is this ? With HTTP, which is a TCPIP connection, isn't there justM one single bidirectional link ? You establish a connection to the remote port J 80, send a few lines of data, and then with the same connection, await the response containing the html.   K If the web server uses the connection you established to send back results, N then it would not attempt to establish a connection to whatever IP you managedM to impersonate. It would simply send packets to that IP, and the host at that I IP would simply discard those TCPIP packets since there is no established I connection from its point of view. Without any acks, the web server would - quickly stop sending data to that IP address.   ; UDP doesn't need a connection establishement, but TCP does.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:31:45 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <3F79DA1E.E75ADA24@istop.com>    John Vottero wrote: K > A fee based system may be out of reach but I think we can improve SMTP to " > make it harder for the spammers.  F No. there si no need to change the protocol. There is a need to changeL business practices. Have a single RBL service that is official, and wheneverK an ISP does not take immediate action to kill off spammers, that ISP is not 6 only put on the RBL, but its name is made very public.  F The problem with RBLs is that when a user gets his emails to company XN rejected, he often doesn't know why. But if he read in the newspapers that hisL ISP has been blacklisted due to bad management and that all emails from thatJ ISP are blocked, then the user would know what is happening and would then+ complain big time to his ISP or switch ISP.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:44:17 -0700 % From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ( Message-ID: <3F79EB21.1050501@rdrop.com>   JF Mezei wrote:   F > The problem with RBLs is that when a user gets his emails to company( > X rejected, he often doesn't know why.  E Really? I'm pretty sure mail servers that reject because of RBLs say  E that's why they rejected a message. At least the few I've had bounce   have told me why.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:27:46 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <3F79F546.C010E076@istop.com>    Dean Woodward wrote:F > Really? I'm pretty sure mail servers that reject because of RBLs sayF > that's why they rejected a message. At least the few I've had bounce > have told me why.     G The rejection messages happen during the SMTP negotiation, after having N entered a RCPT TO command. So some sending SMTO servers, notably the VMS TCPIPK Services one, simply report that it was an invalid email address and do not M include the actual text of the rejection in the message from postamaster sent  back to the sender.   N One has to enable full protocol logging in the SMTP server and scan thorugh it3 to see what the receivinbg SMTP server really said.   C Not sure if this is only the VMS problem or if this problem is more M widespread. But I know that an australian friend was also baffled on why some L of his emails didn't go through and it is only when he contacted my ISP thatM he was told that one fo the 10 SMTP servers used by his ISP were blacklisted.   K My ISP now has a workaround with a different host name to be used to bypass I the spam filtering. And that is the one I use for private communications.    ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:24:39 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <bld6s7$ifu$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   o In article <blbctn$4jd$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) writes: K >In article <blabbl$ivi$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:  > N >Won't be the case. A small ISP is connected to a larger ISP, this one is thenL >connected to a nation-wide network provider which in turn is linked to someL >international network provider. The bills always go between directly linked5 >partners. They already do business which each other.  > . >>Receiving ISP blocks all mail from hotmail ? >>F >>There are some ISPs like hotmail which are so widely used that it isJ >>politically impossible to block them even if they are harbouring tons ofL >>spammers. I'd be lynched by my management if I suggested blocking hotmail. > N >It is a matter of hotmail's ISP only. This one has to decide what to do if itP >gets bills from his uplink - pass them on to hotmail, increase the monthly rate" >for hotmail or drop the contract. > P >>Port 25 connections tell you a connection attempt was made. Doesn't tell you aP >>mail message was delivered. If a message has to be retried because of problemsQ >>with the receiver's system the sender would be being charged for every delivery ? >>attempt even if this ran into thousands of delivery attempts.  > M >Once again, it is not the sender that would be charged in my approach. It is  >like the following: > H >    sender --> sender's ISP --> ISP's uplink --> some large carrier -->G >    larger carrier --> international net company --> large carrier --> 6 >    smaller carrier --> recipient's ISP --> recipient > N >In my approach either the "larger carrier" or the "international net company"N >will have to pay a fee for each message they route through. So "internationalP >net company" will bill "larger carrier". Then it is up to "larger carrier" whatM >to do - most likely bill "some large carrier" either on a per mail basis or  J >with a higher flat fee or implement a scheme like "1000 mails per day areN >included, 10 US$ for each 100 additional ones" or anything in this direction.E >There is no bill going from "recipient" to "recipient's ISP" or from ( >"recipient's ISP" to "smaller carrier". > P >Now let's assume that "recipient" will send a message to "sender". In this caseN >"international net company" (the one that is obliged to the tax) will want toO >bill "large carrier". Again, even today they do business with each other, they O >exchange bills, nothing new is required. "large carrier" has to decide whether L >it will bill "smaller carrier" and if so, in which way. It is then "smallerM >carrier's" job to bill "recipient's ISP" and "recipient's ISP" may decide to O >bill "recipient". It doesn't matter in which country "recipient" is located or 8 >where "sender" is living and in what currency they pay. > P >Now to the case where delivery of a mail is unsuccessfull: it doesn't matter ifP >it counts as a message. The amount of these cases is neglectable to the overallP >number of successfully delivered messages. On the other hand, it is technicallyK >possible to do an exact billing, but I think it is not worth the overhead.  > L As a percentage of successfully delivered mail messages that maybe so but toK the user who sent out one mail message and is billed for a thousand it is a  different matter.     L >>Also this would be a lovely new game for hackers. Spoof an IP address and A >>connect repeatedly to port 25 on a "fee based systems" mailhub.  > O >This won't happen. Look at my example above: sender will get a heavy bill from M >"sender's ISP". The original bill will come from "international net company" L >and will be directed to "larger carrier". This one will pay and request theM >money from "some large carrier" and so on until "sender's ISP" will want the O >mony from sender. I am quite confident that "sender's ISP" will have the means G >to get what it wants or that "sender's ISP" will long have implemented O >something that prevents "sender" from performing costly things that would ruin M >"sender's ISP". "sender" may spoof it's IP address, nevertheless his packets I >originate from him and "sender's ISP" is in a position to tell where the $ >packets came from and whom to bill. > I >I don't seen any organizational problem with my approach. There are some L >technical problems but they are easy to solve. The SMTP protocol as such isK >simple. At a first glance a scanning for packets destinated to port 25 and 3 >containing "CR.CR" would be reasonably sufficient.  >   M You seem to be assuming that mail and the internet are a hierachical network. J They aren't. SMTP is routed over a virtual connection directly between theO sender and recipient systems (Organisations may force this to also pass through > intermediate systems ie their central mailhubs if they wish). N However the link is a virtual connection. The individual packets can be routed all around the world. J Many companies have multiple connections onto the internet. Many companiesO operate in several countries and as well as having internet connections in each G country also have private network connections which in some cases cross  national borders. L This is what gives the internet it's stability. All packets in a single mailK message won't all go through any particular "international net company" let . alone all mail from or to a particular system.    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University      	 >Regards,  >   Christoph Gartmann >  >-- F > Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452 > Immunbiologie J > Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de > D-79011  Freiburg, Germany: >               http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html   ------------------------------   Date: 30 Sep 2003 21:27:55 GMT< From: gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann)I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) 0 Message-ID: <blcsgr$olu$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>  W In article <vnje11aglv7k25@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:  > J >"Christoph Gartmann" <gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens> wrote in message+ >news:blbctn$4jd$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de... M >> In article <blabbl$ivi$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: L >> >>No need for that. From the ISPs point of view, it simply needs to count >or L >> >>observe the packets that come via your interface or channel or whatever >youL >> >>call it. The sender's IP address is simply not relevant. The only thing >that J >> >>counts is that it is a packet dedicated to port 25 and coming to your	 >ISP from M >> >>your site. The ISP will have to make sure that it counts each connection  >only 
 >> >>once. >> >M >> >Your site ? A fee based system cannot possibly work without 100% accuracy H >> >in determining who sent a message. Nowadays you can spoof a switched >network" >> >with publicly available tools. >>K >> Not with my approach. Again, no need to bother with the original sender, M >> rerouting or final destination. From a network providers point of view, it  >will I >> only count or evaluate packets that come via its various channels. And 	 >there is F >> always only one and a dedicated source connected to an interface or	 >channel. K >> This one has to be billed and it is up to this one to bill the ones that  >are >> connected to him. >  >[details removed] > K >> I don't seen any organizational problem with my approach. There are some K >> technical problems but they are easy to solve. The SMTP protocol as such  >is M >> simple. At a first glance a scanning for packets destinated to port 25 and 5 >> containing "CR.CR" would be reasonably sufficient.  >> > J >It's trivial for a person to send your web server a spoofed packet with aJ >bogus source IP address and a source port of 25.  It's not much harder toK >arrange the payload so that your web server replies (to port 25) with "I'm J >sorry but CR.CR couldn't be found".  That packet would count against your
 >bill, right?   O Correct. But it it would hurt me only once. It all depends on how my ISP or his K uplink and so on do the accounting. Let's modify my technical suggestion so K that we count only packets from port 25 to port 25 containing "CR.CR". I am N sure there are still ways to do some tricky things. But as soon as the billingM is implemented, there will come up "billing boxes" that do a very clever job. J But if you cheat billing systems, I'm sure there will be a lot more effortM everywhere to punish you which in turn makes it more likely that you try such 	 attempts.    Regards,    Christoph Gartmann    --  E  Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452   ImmunbiologieI  Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de   D-79011  Freiburg, Germany 9                http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:58:24 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) 4 Message-ID: <1030930203913.403B-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ( On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, John Vottero wrote:   > K > "Christoph Gartmann" <gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens> wrote in message , > news:blbctn$4jd$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de...N > > In article <blabbl$ivi$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:M > > >>No need for that. From the ISPs point of view, it simply needs to count  > orM > > >>observe the packets that come via your interface or channel or whatever  > you M > > >>call it. The sender's IP address is simply not relevant. The only thing  > thatK > > >>counts is that it is a packet dedicated to port 25 and coming to your 
 > ISP fromN > > >>your site. The ISP will have to make sure that it counts each connection > only > > >>once.  > > > N > > >Your site ? A fee based system cannot possibly work without 100% accuracyI > > >in determining who sent a message. Nowadays you can spoof a switched 	 > network # > > >with publicly available tools.  > > L > > Not with my approach. Again, no need to bother with the original sender,N > > rerouting or final destination. From a network providers point of view, it > willJ > > only count or evaluate packets that come via its various channels. And
 > there isG > > always only one and a dedicated source connected to an interface or 
 > channel.L > > This one has to be billed and it is up to this one to bill the ones that > are  > > connected to him.  >  > [details removed]  > L > > I don't seen any organizational problem with my approach. There are someL > > technical problems but they are easy to solve. The SMTP protocol as such > isN > > simple. At a first glance a scanning for packets destinated to port 25 and6 > > containing "CR.CR" would be reasonably sufficient. > >  > K > It's trivial for a person to send your web server a spoofed packet with a K > bogus source IP address and a source port of 25.  It's not much harder to L > arrange the payload so that your web server replies (to port 25) with "I'mK > sorry but CR.CR couldn't be found".  That packet would count against your  > bill, right?  H CR.CR means "end of message" in SMTP.  You can't embed one in the middleD of mail, because on transmission any line starting with a dot gets aC second dot prefixed.  A line with just one dot is sent as two dots:  CR..CR  ' A line with n dots is sent as n+1 dots.   C The recipient looks at the received lines.  One dot by itself means C end of message, so it stores or forwards the message (not including @ the line with the dot), replies to the sender with "I've got it.B Good Bye", and closes the connection.  Otherwise any line startingA with a dot gets the dot removed, and is added to the accumulating  message.  B So a bad guy couldn't run up your mail bill by making you send him1 a bogus message with many embedded CR.CR's in it.   C They could notch it up by one message charge just by getting you to B send a single mail to them or anywhere else, though.  For example,B they could attack any web site that asks for your mail address and@ then sends you an acknowledgement just by writting a script thatB talks HTML client to it, feeds it a bogus email address, and makesA it try to respond.  Do this in a loop.  (If any morons are stupid A enough to try this, they could be quickly caught by tracking down D their IP addresses from the servers logs.  They would have to hijackB a different IP address to do the form-filling, which boils down to> yet another payload for a virus or a trojan.  Any measure that? combat viruses would work against this.  I hope I haven't given - anyone ideas that weren't already out there!)   A Although some people have claimed it is easy to spoof your source A address, from the description of the method, you could only spoof A it as an address served from the some router you are connected to E (presumably in the same small subnet or in a limited set of subnets), > and you have to do it by flooding it with phone ARP packets...  A I think someone monitoring the router would be able to figure out ? pretty quickly which of the two circuits coming into the router @ was the one that was trying to hijack the other's IP and who was really out there.    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:54:52 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)b) Message-ID: <bld8ks$j23$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   W In article <vnjejme0q66c42@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes: : >"Bill Gunshannon" <bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message4 >news:blbs3f$9v9oi$1@ID-135708.news.uni-berlin.de.../ >> In article <3F78E20E.2010100@tsoft-inc.com>,m- >> David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:) >> >L >> > The real issue is that if something isn't done to stop, or at least put >someoG >> > limits on spam, it will totally destroy the usefulness of internetr >e-mail. >s >[snip]i >mM >> But it will never be implemented because there are and will remain to many L >> machines without the ability to play that game.  Sendmail, as we know it, >> is not going away.c >M4 >Sendmail is less ingrained that vinyl records were. > J >A fee based system may be out of reach but I think we can improve SMTP to! >make it harder for the spammers.  >o >e  ' Looking at ways to improve SMTP great. eO I have grave doubts whether it would be good to have a fee based system even ifF% all the problems could be sorted out..  G comp.os.vms is linked to a mailing list (as are many other newsgroups).e  O If we already had a fee based mail system in place would similar discussions tooJ this one ever take place ? Would anyone answer technical queries if it was1 going to cost them or their organisation money ? w  K A fee based system might well have a bigger effect on legitimate mail userst than on the spammers.V  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University          ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:43:02 -0400h% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>rI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)l/ Message-ID: <vnkc9752d5rt35@news.supernews.com>o  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message # news:3F79DA1E.E75ADA24@istop.com...0 > John Vottero wrote:EJ > > A fee based system may be out of reach but I think we can improve SMTP to$ > > make it harder for the spammers. >yH > No. there si no need to change the protocol. There is a need to changeE > business practices. Have a single RBL service that is official, andr wheneverI > an ISP does not take immediate action to kill off spammers, that ISP isO note8 > only put on the RBL, but its name is made very public.  K RBLs are for ignoring mail from a known open relay.  You can't blame an ISPn	 for that.M  J You are assuming that all spammers are criminals.  What about the spammersG that don't break any laws?  Why should an ISP be forced to refuse theirp1 business?  And, who decides who the spammers are?r   > H > The problem with RBLs is that when a user gets his emails to company XL > rejected, he often doesn't know why. But if he read in the newspapers that his I > ISP has been blacklisted due to bad management and that all emails from  thatL > ISP are blocked, then the user would know what is happening and would then- > complain big time to his ISP or switch ISP.0  H It not ISPs that get blacklisted, it's companies with misconfigured SMTP$ servers (which could be an ISP too).   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:51:02 -0400n% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>rI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)5/ Message-ID: <vnkco7j4e853a3@news.supernews.com>   7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messaget# news:3F79D95B.371B6BD2@istop.com...  > John Vottero wrote:eK > > It's trivial for a person to send your web server a spoofed packet withr a 4 > > bogus source IP address and a source port of 25. >uK > How trivial is this ? With HTTP, which is a TCPIP connection, isn't there4 justJ > one single bidirectional link ? You establish a connection to the remote portL > 80, send a few lines of data, and then with the same connection, await the > response containing the html.f >aD > If the web server uses the connection you established to send back results,H > then it would not attempt to establish a connection to whatever IP you managed5J > to impersonate. It would simply send packets to that IP, and the host at thatK > IP would simply discard those TCPIP packets since there is no establishedtK > connection from its point of view. Without any acks, the web server would / > quickly stop sending data to that IP address.i  K I've never actually spoofed any connections so I don't really know how hardlI it is.  When you establish the connection to port 80, you have to specify.F the port that the connection request should reply to.  Usually (if youL aren't a hacker), you let the TCP/IP stack pick any unused port.  If you areJ a hacker then you're hacking your own stack and you can make it pick 25 as that unused port.   H Since I haven't tried this, there could be a fatal flaw in my evil plan.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:01:52 -0400-% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>1I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)f/ Message-ID: <vnkdch4n0u044a@news.supernews.com>c  + <david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message1# news:bld8ks$j23$1@news.mdx.ac.uk...t@ > In article <vnjejme0q66c42@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:< > >"Bill Gunshannon" <bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message6 > >news:blbs3f$9v9oi$1@ID-135708.news.uni-berlin.de...1 > >> In article <3F78E20E.2010100@tsoft-inc.com>, / > >> David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:n > >> >J > >> > The real issue is that if something isn't done to stop, or at least putn > >some I > >> > limits on spam, it will totally destroy the usefulness of interneto
 > >e-mail. > >o	 > >[snip]x > >gJ > >> But it will never be implemented because there are and will remain to manyJ > >> machines without the ability to play that game.  Sendmail, as we know it,d > >> is not going away.o > > 6 > >Sendmail is less ingrained that vinyl records were. > >-L > >A fee based system may be out of reach but I think we can improve SMTP to# > >make it harder for the spammers.: > >a > >  >e( > Looking at ways to improve SMTP great.I > I have grave doubts whether it would be good to have a fee based system- even if ' > all the problems could be sorted out.  > I > comp.os.vms is linked to a mailing list (as are many other newsgroups).t >rB > If we already had a fee based mail system in place would similar discussions toL > this one ever take place ? Would anyone answer technical queries if it was2 > going to cost them or their organisation money ? >=G > A fee based system might well have a bigger effect on legitimate mail  usersc > than on the spammers.  >0  I I absolutely agree.  Any fee based system must have a way to support freenK mail.  But, it should be my decision (as the receiver) to allow free e-mailhK from Info-VAX and refuse it from unknown sources.  The advantage I see withnD a fee based system is I could then decide to only accept e-mail fromJ Hotmail.com if they were willing to pay a fee.  Hotmail would wind up withL two levels of service, free and cheap.  The cheap level would send mail withI an offer to pay a fee.  Likewise, our company would always offer to pay aFI fee.  We don't send spam and that would be a clear indication of our gooda intentions.q   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:13:15 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)e) Message-ID: <bldd7r$khs$3@news.mdx.ac.uk>h  V In article <3F79F546.C010E076@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: >Dean Woodward wrote:sG >> Really? I'm pretty sure mail servers that reject because of RBLs saysG >> that's why they rejected a message. At least the few I've had bounce  >> have told me why. >n >mH >The rejection messages happen during the SMTP negotiation, after havingO >entered a RCPT TO command. So some sending SMTO servers, notably the VMS TCPIPiL >Services one, simply report that it was an invalid email address and do notN >include the actual text of the rejection in the message from postamaster sent >back to the sender. >/O >One has to enable full protocol logging in the SMTP server and scan thorugh it-4 >to see what the receivinbg SMTP server really said. >oD >Not sure if this is only the VMS problem or if this problem is moreN >widespread. But I know that an australian friend was also baffled on why someM >of his emails didn't go through and it is only when he contacted my ISP that-N >he was told that one fo the 10 SMTP servers used by his ISP were blacklisted. >J  O With PMDF and I think most mailhub software you can specify the exact rejectione5 message to be sent along with the 5xx rejectioncode. w   eg  Z  530 5.7.1  Host 216.135.178.138 is on the RSS list - See <URL:http://mail-abuse.org/rss/>  M Whether the sending system will display this error message is another matter.         L >My ISP now has a workaround with a different host name to be used to bypassJ >the spam filtering. And that is the one I use for private communications.  
 David Webb VMS and unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:20:30 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)f) Message-ID: <blddld$khs$4@news.mdx.ac.uk>a  o In article <blcsgr$olu$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) writes: X >In article <vnje11aglv7k25@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes: >>K >>"Christoph Gartmann" <gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens> wrote in messager, >>news:blbctn$4jd$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de...N >>> In article <blabbl$ivi$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>K >>It's trivial for a person to send your web server a spoofed packet with adK >>bogus source IP address and a source port of 25.  It's not much harder to/L >>arrange the payload so that your web server replies (to port 25) with "I'mK >>sorry but CR.CR couldn't be found".  That packet would count against youra >>bill, right? >iP >Correct. But it it would hurt me only once. It all depends on how my ISP or hisL >uplink and so on do the accounting. Let's modify my technical suggestion soL >that we count only packets from port 25 to port 25 containing "CR.CR". I am5 >sure there are still ways to do some tricky things. h  N In that case you will pick up no mail traffic at all. SMTP mail is directed at$ port 25 it never comes from port 25.       >But as soon as the billingtN >is implemented, there will come up "billing boxes" that do a very clever job.K >But if you cheat billing systems, I'm sure there will be a lot more effortiN >everywhere to punish you which in turn makes it more likely that you try such
 >attempts. >o4 And how much overhead will all this logging create ?N Welcome to slownet even slower than your current internet experience coming to you very very slowly.-  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University      	 >Regards,  >   Christoph Gartmann >i >-- F > Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452 > Immunbiologie6J > Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de > D-79011  Freiburg, Germany: >               http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 03:01:12 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)s) Message-ID: <bldg1o$l6r$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   W In article <vnkc9752d5rt35@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:s8 >"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message$ >news:3F79DA1E.E75ADA24@istop.com... >> John Vottero wrote:K >> > A fee based system may be out of reach but I think we can improve SMTPm >to % >> > make it harder for the spammers.g >>I >> No. there si no need to change the protocol. There is a need to changeeF >> business practices. Have a single RBL service that is official, and	 >wheneveriJ >> an ISP does not take immediate action to kill off spammers, that ISP is >not9 >> only put on the RBL, but its name is made very public.  >rL >RBLs are for ignoring mail from a known open relay.  You can't blame an ISP
 >for that. > G There are different types of RBL. Yes some just list known open relays.jJ Others list systems which have definitely sent spam - a sample of the spamB including full headers has to be sent to the RBL list maintainers.J Others list such systems which have actively refused to clean up their act& after a period of repeated complaints.K Different RBL's have different policies. When implementing use of RBLs on aiF mailhub you should find out what the RBL policy is before applying it.  K >You are assuming that all spammers are criminals.  What about the spammerskH >that don't break any laws?  Why should an ISP be forced to refuse their2 >business?  And, who decides who the spammers are? >t  N At the moment I doubt any Spammer is breaking the Law. That just shows the law has to catch up.N Hopefully it will be illegal to send out unsolicited bulk email in a number of" jurisdictions in the near future.   M The RBLs tread a thin line legally. They just provide lists of machines whichpG are open-relays or have been found to have sent spam (or whatever othereA criteria the list uses). How people use those lists is upto them.oL The fact that my site uses a list to block mail from those sites entering myO site is my right. Similarly some of the blacklists have faced court action fromeN spammers claiming that the list was maliciously listing them and stopping them! carrying on their legal business.t  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   >>I >> The problem with RBLs is that when a user gets his emails to company XuM >> rejected, he often doesn't know why. But if he read in the newspapers thata >hisJ >> ISP has been blacklisted due to bad management and that all emails from >that M >> ISP are blocked, then the user would know what is happening and would thena. >> complain big time to his ISP or switch ISP. >tI >It not ISPs that get blacklisted, it's companies with misconfigured SMTP % >servers (which could be an ISP too).b >r >c >n   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:22:09 -0400k( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)o, Message-ID: <3F7A3A51.8010101@tsoft-inc.com>  ; > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 5 > news:blbs3f$9v9oi$1@ID-135708.news.uni-berlin.de...  > . >>In article <3F78E20E.2010100@tsoft-inc.com>,, >>David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >>J >>>The real issue is that if something isn't done to stop, or at least put >>>- > some > E >>>limits on spam, it will totally destroy the usefulness of interneto >>>o	 > e-mail.j >  > [snip] >  > L >>But it will never be implemented because there are and will remain to manyK >>machines without the ability to play that game.  Sendmail, as we know it,o >>is not going away.    Fine, tell me what won't happen.  N Tell me what you're going to do when you have to work overtime to get through $ all the e-mail you recieve each day?  N What are you going to do when your connection to the internet, no matter what M type you have, is dedicating 90% of it's bandwidth to spam and such, and you e& cannot move the data you need to move?  O The problem with filters at the receiving end is that the transfer takes place t( before you make any filtering decisions.  9 So, you've told me what won't happen.  Got any solutions?s   How're the cables working?   Dave   -- s4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486e   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:49:56 -0400a( From: Jack O'Neil <J.Oneil@stargate.org>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)R, Message-ID: <3F7A4EC2.98E0F253@stargate.org>   John Vottero wrote:4I => the port that the connection request should reply to.  Usually (if youaN > aren't a hacker), you let the TCP/IP stack pick any unused port.  If you areL > a hacker then you're hacking your own stack and you can make it pick 25 as > that unused port.n  L Some stacks require you have privileges to specify a known port. Besides, ifM port 25 is already used, then the request to connect may fail since the local  endpoint would be busy.h  M However, specifying the port for the local endpoint is very far from spoofinge the IP address.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:04:58 -0400d* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)l) Message-ID: <3F7A6054.4631F2A5@istop.com>t   David Froble wrote:-P > The problem with filters at the receiving end is that the transfer takes place* > before you make any filtering decisions.  H Prior to the DATA phase when content is transfered, the SMTP negitiation provides the received with:wR 1- authoritative address of the sender's IP address (from the receiver's IP stack)@ 2- a host/domain name from the HELO command. (non authoritative)B 3- a return path email address from MAIL FROM: (non authoritative)H 4- destination emails from RCPT TO: (only those destined for this host).  K At the each RCPT TO:, the receiver has the option to refuse it and issue an ( error message. If the error is signaled.K When the sender issues the DATA command, the receiver can issue a "sorry, Ig$ don't want it" and close connection.  H You cannot scan the contents for a virus without receiving that content.  M You want the sender to give you a summary of the attachement ? He'll give youaJ a nice summary you are happy with, and when the recipient gives you the goI ahead, you then send contents which totally differ and contain the virus.g  N One totally different approach would be to build a database of authorized SMTPM servers. Anyone with a fixed IP address could register, with legitimate name,hM address etc. That person would then be held responsible for all emails comingl from that IP address.e  L If that IP address starts to send spam or viruses, you then have an easy wayK to contact the person/organbisation to get an explanation. If there are too < many complaints, that IP address is flagged in the database.  N Receivers would only need to check to see if the sender's IP address is listed; in the database and accept only those which are registered.s  K The SMTP protocol itself wouldn't need to change. Just SMTP server softwaretE which would add an RBL like check very early in the SMTP negotiation.n   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:20:05 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> Subject: Re: IMACROh2 Message-ID: <FHkeb.6014$ff1.4410@news.cpqcorp.net>   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > F > Well, since everything is in such good shape, you could use the TECOG > source as a regression test from VAX, since AMACRO could never handlep > it :-)  I Well, it isn't that AMACRO couldn't handle it, but it would need a whole uG bunch of code modifications that nobody was willing to attempt without IC massive mind-altering drugs.  A VAX to Alpha MACRO-32 port has the iF potential of requiring significant code-changes, new directives, etc. > An Alpha to Itanium MACRO-32 port is nowhere near as involved.  E On my white board, I have "WWAD" (What Would Alpha Do) with a "WWVD" a& (What Would VAX Do) immediately below.     -- h John Reagany' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leadere Hewlett-Packard Companye   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:59:14 GMTI2 From: "george pagliarulo" <georgepag@adelphia.net>* Subject: ITRC Download site - some answers: Message-ID: <Sxqeb.505$qj6.466734@news1.news.adelphia.net>   Hi,m  I     I work with the VMS ECO release process.  Customer messages have gonetL out about the new ITRC ECO site and the changes that are coming but there isC still a lot of confusion about how the site will work, what will be L available, what doesn't work etc.  Hopefully this will clear some things up.  
 Patch Digests> --------------L Digests are the way you get notified of new kits.   You need to register forH them but registration is open and does *NOT* require a contact number as- someone alluded to (see contract note below).lL There is a known problem with the digests in that they pick up all or almostI all the ECO's that are released rather than just the ECO's released sincecL the last digest was issued (weekly).  The problem is fixed but unfortunatelyK the fix can't be implemented until there is a release of the ITRC software. L That will happen in October.  When it does you should not see more than 5 toJ 8 ECOs in a VMS digest, probably a lot less most of the time.  If no ECO's: have been released for the week, no digest will be issued.H Someone mentioned that weekly notification was completely inadequate forG security related issues.  That's absolutely correct.  But, if we have amL security related issue, typically, we issue a Customer Advisory that detailsH the problem and what the corrective action is - usually a pointer to theJ applicable kit.  The CAs go out through a completely different process andL have no time restrictions.  This same process would apply anytime we need to( get a critical message out to customers.  % Missing Files and directory structurer% ------------------------------------- J If you are coming in through FTP you need to be aware that UPDATE kits areH NOT under the V7.3x etc. directories.  There is a directory called, if IL remember correctly, patch_bundles.  There is a VMS directory structure underH that that contains the UPDATE kits.  This is because the ECOs were movedJ into the existing ITRC directory structure.  That structure *IS* changing.K All the UPDATE kits will be moved into the appropriate version directories.mD Also the V7.3x type directories will be replaced by specific versionE directories, e.g. V7.3, V7.3-1 etc.  This change is also happening inh October.  	 Contractsp
 ----------L When you register for the ITRC you will see an option to enter your contractH number to access some of the services offered.  This does *NOT* work forH pre-merger Compaq contract numbers.  The way this is being handled (by aK process that is completely separate and not influenced by the ITRC) is thatbI as Compaq contracts expire and are re-issued with HP contracts, those newvE contract numbers will be accepted by  ITRC registration.  Most of theaK options on the ITRC -  FTP, browsing for patches , digest notifications andl( others do NOT require a contract number.  	 Checksumsa ------------K The VMS kitting process never issued checksums.  Those were added as a post"I processing step by the process that loaded the kits onto the distribution L site, once the kits left VMS land.  To make up for the loss of that functionK when the old process does go away, VMS kits now include the checksum in thesG documentation.  The docs for new kits now have a header at the top that L lists critical information like installation rating, reboot requirement, kitH size, and the checksum value.  This has already been implemented.  We'reJ looking at how to get the checksums moved over for the older kits but thatK may not be possible.  I suspect that it will never happen for versions thattK are no longer supported, e.g. V7.2, V7.2-1 etc.  We'll probably concentratemB on getting the checksums updated for currently supported versions.  	 Searching'
 ----------L Right now if you search for, say, V7.3-1 ECO kits, they come up in no order.H In the future, search results will be ordered by installation rating andK then by issue date.  You will also be able to search by installation rating J keywords, issue dates and kit name keywords (which does not work that wellE right now).   These changes will not make the afore-mentioned OctobersL release of the ITRC.  They will happen in the December release but there areJ workarounds.  I don't have the specifics in front of me right now but I'll post them later.  J If you are not getting an adequate response from mail sent to the ITRC letI me know.  I can either answer your questions or get a hold of someone whoyI can.  I can also let the ITRC know that they have a response problem.  If I you just want to bitch send me that too... I won't guarantee an answer toiE that but I want to hear what is frustrating VMS users about the ITRC.-L People are listening to what you are saying and a lot of work is going on toG make the ITRC site as VMS friendly as possible.   A lot of issues arose C because we had to get stuff moved over and we had to move it into a-K structure that was not optimized for VMS.  Some issues have come up becausemL of misunderstanding or miscommunication.  FTP is a good example of that.  WeF NEVER planned to eliminate FTP access.  The work to make the ITRC moreK VMS-friendly is getting done.  A good part of it will be done by the end ofrF October.  Being from VMS, I have been impressed by the way the HP ITRC> support people are really working to accommodate us as much as possible..really!    George Pagliarulo$ george.pagliarulo@hp.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:12:56 -0400o* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>. Subject: Re: ITRC Download site - some answers) Message-ID: <3F7A5425.39EE6BCA@istop.com>t   george pagliarulo wrote: >  > Hi,  > K >     I work with the VMS ECO release process.  Customer messages have gone N > out about the new ITRC ECO site and the changes that are coming but there isE > still a lot of confusion about how the site will work, what will beo   Thanks for explanation.m  M You may wish to advise your web folks that Yukon Time Zone hasn't existed forg
 many decades.   - It is listed as a possible time zone on page: i > http://us-support.external.hp.com/login/bin/doc.pl/sid=dae40b840025e19c26/screen=loginAboutReg/continueu  / All of the Yukon operates on Pacifc Time Zone.    G I am amazed on why Digital, then Compaq and now HP continue to use this  mythical time zone.    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Sep 2003 13:19:00 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)a= Subject: Re: map port 21 from XP gateway to VMS intranet box?t3 Message-ID: <dPiC6sx6+Y$a@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  W In article <blc6nl$a29$1@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr>, Didier Morandi <no@spam.com> writes:hJ > Did anyone succeed to map the incoming FTP port 21 of a XP Pro box with : > a public IP address to a VMS box located in an intranet? >   A    I think I'd look for that feature in a router, not in Windows.v   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:41:57 -0500u( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com>$ Subject: Re: New round of cuts at HP0 Message-ID: <00A26AFA.3A4CC74F.10@tachysoft.com>   >hM >I can't imagine the nightmare that PSC is having moving all of that MACRO-32o >codelJ >to IA64 (if they are), especially when its author no longer is associated >with the company. >i    M Yow, sounds painful.  I have only a couple of .m64 modules to deal with.  I'moN going to attempt to get rid of them rather than rework them, same as I've been< doing with macro code in general for the last several years.   WayneiO ===============================================================================fN Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html   yO ===============================================================================tH Randolph Duke (in Trading Places): "Mother always said you were greedy."1    Mortimer Duke: "She meant it as a compliment!"b   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:02:24 -0500.( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com>$ Subject: Re: New round of cuts at HP/ Message-ID: <00A26AFD.156A4161.1@tachysoft.com>J   >>N >>I can't imagine the nightmare that PSC is having moving all of that MACRO-32 >>codeK >>to IA64 (if they are), especially when its author no longer is associated  >>with the company.  >> >s >hN >Yow, sounds painful.  I have only a couple of .m64 modules to deal with.  I'mO >going to attempt to get rid of them rather than rework them, same as I've beeni= >doing with macro code in general for the last several years.I >     K Oh, crap.  I need to read more carefully.  He as referring to macro-32, notmN macro-64.  Macro-32 is no big deal.  It converts okay.  The only reason I'm onI a campaign to get rid of it is because of still having to support the godiM damned vax.  Every time I see another "branch destination out of range" after 3 adding a few lines of code I want to kill somebody.oO ===============================================================================sN Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html    O ===============================================================================tH Randolph Duke (in Trading Places): "Mother always said you were greedy."1    Mortimer Duke: "She meant it as a compliment!"    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:44:44 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG$ Subject: Re: New round of cuts at HP0 Message-ID: <00A26B0B.6665B080@SendSpamHere.ORG>  Z In article <00A26AFD.156A4161.1@tachysoft.com>, Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com> writes: >>>rO >>>I can't imagine the nightmare that PSC is having moving all of that MACRO-32  >>>code L >>>to IA64 (if they are), especially when its author no longer is associated >>>with the company. >>>t >> >>O >>Yow, sounds painful.  I have only a couple of .m64 modules to deal with.  I'm P >>going to attempt to get rid of them rather than rework them, same as I've been> >>doing with macro code in general for the last several years. >> >r >fL >Oh, crap.  I need to read more carefully.  He as referring to macro-32, notO >macro-64.  Macro-32 is no big deal.  It converts okay.  The only reason I'm ontJ >a campaign to get rid of it is because of still having to support the godN >damned vax.  Every time I see another "branch destination out of range" after4 >adding a few lines of code I want to kill somebody.  K I have a macro which redefines all of the VAX branch instructions to allow iJ branch to be a word away.  You don't have to change a line of code, just aI reference to this macro at the beginning of the program.  I too have seen K the "branch destination out of range" all too often, especially since I now 7 do all the development/maintenance coding on the Alpha.    -- gL VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM            g5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" m   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:38:32 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk$ Subject: Re: New round of cuts at HP) Message-ID: <bld7m7$iq2$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   x In article <ZIheb.318$qj6.289471@news1.news.adelphia.net>, "John Gemignani, Jr." <jon-nope@thiswontworkossc.net> writes: > , ><david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message$ >news:bl12pv$cv1$1@news.mdx.ac.uk... >>L >> Thinking about TCPIP. DEC TCPIP services is based on the same code as the >TCPIPM >> stack for Tru64. Since Tru64 is becoming an organ donor for HP-UX on IntelTF >> what is happening about future developments of DEC TCPIP services ? >i >bJ >> Will it continue to be developed for VMS or are we going to see another >majorJ >> rewrite (as we had from UCX 4.x to Dec TCPIP services 5.x) with support >forM >> older versions of VMS being dropped in an attempt to get a common codebaseo$ >> for TCPIP between VMS and HP-UX ? >tK >    It will continue to be developed.  The UCX -> TCPIP was not a rewrite.m >As partE >    of the IP stack integration with OpenVMS (and VMS engineering int >general), theJ >    project went through a name change.  The UCX version was based on the >commonnM >    stack code with Ultrix-32.  In order to get the performance improvementsh
 >and IPv6,K >    the choice to move to the Dunix stack was made.  The original plan was 	 >to bringwJ >    the TCPIP product to market with the V6.0 version but the update went >rather6K >    smoothly so the schedule was brought forward and the version numbering2
 >adjusted. >rI >    Since I also put together the build environment, I found that it wass >easy to port otheraM >    Dunix/Tru64 pieces rather easily as well.  Since we wanted an NFS server2
 >with bothM >    TCP and NFSv3 support, we chose to pull in the kernel (protocol) support5 >from Tru64 J >    in TCPIP V5.1.  The underlying file access remained using the earlier >TCPIP$CFS_SHR
 >    code. >fJ >    The choice to "drop" support for earlier versions was consistent with >the support forM >    previous versions of OpenVMS.  Since TCPIP was now using newer and newer,L >    facilities within the operating system, and the OS was marching forward >in versionsK >    and dropping support for older releases behind it, [and since TCPIP isi >now integratedbK >    with the OS], the same policy was adopted.  [I am not saying whether IM >agree here or2 >    not, just stating the facts, as I know them.] >d  C This dropping of support for earlier versions really p*ssed me off.tH We have some systems which for application reasons are stuck at VMS 6.2.O Due to various factors we needed to multihome these systems. We found that withnM UCX 4.2 the routing would not work correctly - we needed both a default routei; to the rest of the world and a route to a 10.x.x.x network. L This surprised us since it worked fine on DEC TCPIP services 5.x systems but5 checking with Compaq showed this was a known problem.tJ To solve the problem we were forced to buy TCPWARE for these systems which is compatible back to VMS 5.5.    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University          I >    Consideration was given to a common code base between HP-UX and VMS.- >HP-UXH >    gets their stack from an outside source, and the licensing does not >allow for VMS to useeK >    it.  The thought to bring the Tru64/VMS stack to HP-UX was considered,9 >but theirs isM >    stream-based and on Tru64/VMS it is socket based.  The decision was mades >that we! >    would not share a code base.e >wM >    TCPIP services will eventually continue development on its own, althoughM
 >NSK is usinge >    the same code base. > 
 >    -John >  >>
 >> David Webbe >> VMS and Unix team leaderd >> CCSSe >> Middlesex Universitya >> >n >    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:12:22 GMTd& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid> Subject: Re: Nice touch, AMD2 Message-ID: <aIjeb.5996$%a1.2299@news.cpqcorp.net>  P Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:D > It doesn't however the only OE refered to in the document is HP-UXC > 10.xx and there is no errata or other information suggesting thats; > while the K Series supports 8GB of RAM HP-UX 10 does not.   E Clearly an oversite when editing the document over its lifetime.  TheaB 10.20 release notes at docs.hp.com include the 10.10 release notesE (page 3-9, or just search for "3.75" at docs.hp.com) when maximum RAMaE suport was increased from 2GB to 3.75 GB (the other .25 GB of addressk# space being reserved for IO space).   
 rick jones  D BTW, your mention of 32-bit 2.5 and 2.6 and AIX kernels supporting >F 4GB of RAM made me curious about "history" - if you could send me some+ URLs discussing that I would appreciate it.    --  G oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates:F these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH....   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:24:42 -0400 - From: Jonathan Boswell <jsb@ost.cdrh.fda.gov>p* Subject: Re: non-interactive audio capture0 Message-ID: <3F7A10BA.9960F84A@ost.cdrh.fda.gov>   "Keith A. Lewis" wrote: I > My PWS audio projects are coming out so well that I'm thinking of videotL > capture.  Is there a reason DEC never wrote a video capture driver for theL > Elsa Gloria Synergy?  The card itself has the capability; I wonder if ElsaJ > would give me the necessary documentation.  Would I have to re-write theL > video display driver for the card, or is the capture driver separate under
 > DECwindows?n  D There was an AlphaVCR application and as I see with a quick check anJ MMOV$VIDEORECORD also.  I think the latter was the command line version ofL AlphaVCR, but I haven't run it recently (if ever).  It used to use the AV321L card which included hardware JPEG compression and decompression.  I used theN card at least once to capture stunning S-video and it worked great.  I have noO idea whether you can get the sources and adapt them to the Elsa Gloria Synergy.a    - JBc   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:11:19 GMTy# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>/. Subject: Re: OT: Talk about bad luck (Halifax)H Message-ID: <bHjeb.51986$3r1.27681@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   Ken Moreau wrote:i > Kerry Main wrote:h > > >> For those that would like to re-visit what one of the worst" >> hurricanes was like, check out: >>4 >> http://www.sptimes.com/2002/webspecials02/andrew/ > 4 > Well, if we are comparing hurricane stories... :^) >aE > I was in Palm Beach when Andrew devastated Homestead: if Andrew haddA > taken a right turn instead of a left turn at the Bahamas, thosemD > pictures would have been of my neighborhood instead of my parent'sF > neighborhood.  My father talks about how they were running from roomD > to room to try and find a safe spot, as the beams of wood from theE > other destroyed houses would smash into their house and wreck theirv> > supposed "safe" spot.  They survived with no injuries, but a > terrifying few hours.i >iD > But what was most interesting was the pattern of destruction.  TheB > local paper tried to find a correlation around which houses wereE > destroyed and which survived mostly intact.  They looked at type ofrD > construction, location, date of construction, the builders, price,D > east vs west facing, and couldn't find any correlation.  Then theyE > found a factor which offered an almost perfect, 100% correlation toA > whether the house survived:  >c' > Who inspected it during construction.m > C > The local paper then checked the net worth of the inspectors, andpH > again found an almost perfect correlation between net worth and amountE > of destruction: the higher the net worth of the inspector, the more F > likely the house was to be destroyed.   And the funny thing was thatH > these same inspectors were by far the most productive, with them beingD > able to inspect 20, 30 or even 40 houses in a day, where the other< > inspectors were lucky to inspect 10 houses in a day... :^) >i* > The paper had fun with this for *weeks*!       Interesting story.I Do you recall which newspaper and approximately which date the article(s)y ran?  F One has to suspect that homes built using poured concrete walls (oftenK inside what are known as ICF's or 'insulated concrete forms') ought to havenF performed well. The major vunerability of homes like these is the roof? attachment points, strength of the roof system, and door/windowi
 penetrations.e  H But in a hurricane like Andrew the door/window opening would have likelyJ been penetrated by flying debris even if boarded up with 3/4" plywood, and$ most roof systems would have failed.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:17:02 -0400t* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>. Subject: Re: OT: Talk about bad luck (Halifax)) Message-ID: <3F79D6AB.DC5069E6@istop.com>x   Ken Moreau wrote:FE > found a factor which offered an almost perfect, 100% correlation toD > whether the house survived:h > ' > Who inspected it during construction.   J I find it interesting that folks in hurricane prone areas would think thatE saving a few bucks by not building to code would be a good thing. TheaN inspectors may have conveniently kept some eyes closed, but it is the buildersS which would have conveniently built the home wrong or with missing safety features.a  M When I lived through Olivia, I did try to go outside on the downwind side andCM didn't even take a step out because I realised the real danger to my life. AnnN empty beer car, flying at 250 km/h may not destroy a concrete wall, but it can  do a lot of damage to your body.  H If I lived in such an area, I'd make damned sure the home would be builtM safely. And guess what, I'd also want to make sure that neighbour's homes aresJ also built to standard because I don't want those homes to generate flyingP 2*4s or have the roof of a home across the street take off and fly into my home.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:34:11 -0400o* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>. Subject: Re: OT: Talk about bad luck (Halifax)) Message-ID: <3F79DAB0.E6394012@istop.com>e   John Smith wrote: J > But in a hurricane like Andrew the door/window opening would have likelyL > been penetrated by flying debris even if boarded up with 3/4" plywood, and& > most roof systems would have failed.  I One shouldn't have large bay windows and patio doors in a hurricane pronefK area. And if you have metal grids/grills to protect the windows that you doe) have, then it is far better than plywood.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 03:19:05 GMT- From: anon@anon.com (Louis)eD Subject: Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED, Message-ID: <412ab16c.10525845@news.rcn.com>  ; Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEEDa  B I found this in a news group and decided to try it. A little whileB back, I was browsing through newsgroups, just like you are now and= came across a message just like this that said you could makeoD thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of	 $6.00!!! i  F So I thought yeah right, this must be a scam!!! But like most of us, IF was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said that you send $1.00 toA each of the 6 names and addresses stated in the message. You thentC place your own name and address at the bottom of the list at #6 andcE post the message in at least 200 news groups. (There are thousands to $ choose from). No catch, that was it.  ? So after thinking it over, and talking to a few people first. I D thought about trying it. I figured, what have I got to lose except 6F stamps and $6.00, right? So I invested the measly $6.00!!! Guess what?E Within 7 days I started getting money in the mail!!! I was shocked!!!tD I figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in!!! InF my first week, I had made about $25.00. By the end of the second week,E I had made a total of over $1,000.00!!! In the third week, I had over F $10,000.00 and it is still growing!!! This is now my fourth week and IC have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it is still coming inyB rapidly!!! It's certainly worth $6.00 and 6 stamps!!! I have spent! more than that on the lottery!!!    E Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, why it works!!! t  D Also, make sure you print a copy of this message now. So you can getC the information off of it as you need it. I promise you that if youMD follow the directions exactly, that you will start making more money8 than you thought possible by doing something so easy!!!   B Suggestion: Read this entire message carefully!!! (Print it out orC download it.) Follow the simple directions and watch the money comeeD in!!! It's easy!!! It's legal!!! Your investment is only $6.00 (plus
 postage).   @ IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off!!! It is not illegal!!! ? It is> almost entirely risk free and it really works!!! If all of theE following instructions are adhered to, you will receive extraordinaryg
 dividends!!! 6  D Please note: Follow these directions EXACTLY, and $60,000.00 or more@ can be yours in 20 to 90 days!!! This program remains successfulF because of the honesty and the integrity of the participants!!! Please@ continue its success by carefully adhering to the instructions.   E You will now become part of the mail order business. In this businessmF your product is not solid or tangible, it is a service. You are in theA business of developing mailing lists. Many large corporations areaF happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However, the money made fromC a mailing list is secondary to the income which is made from people > like you and me asking to be included on your mailing list!!!   & Here are the 4 easy steps to success:-  B Step 1:- Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each piece of paper. s  " PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST  tE Now get 6 U.S. dollar bills and place ONE inside each of the 6 piecess@ of paper so the bills will not be seen through the envelopes (toE prevent mail theft). Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopescB and seal them, you should now have 6 sealed envelopes. Each with aE piece of paper stating the above phrase, your name and address, and as $1.00 bill.   C THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL!!! YOU ARE REQUESTING A LEGITIMATE SERVICEt AND YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT!!! a  D Like most of us, I was a little skeptical and a little worried aboutD the legal aspect of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Postal5 Service and they confirmed that it is indeed legal!!!a  1 Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:-o     S. A. Blairl 14601 Portland Ave #219u Burnsville, MN 55306     D. Kumar Room 2.36 Burkhardt Housel Oxford Place, Victoria Parkt M14 5RR Manchester ENGLANDn   T. Perce 11505 Headley Avenue Cleveland, Oh 44111e      
 T. Beckers Rijksweg 46s 6267AH Cadier en Keer  The Netherlandsm  
 J. Eddolls 144 Pursey Drive
 Bradley Stokem Bristolt BS32 8DP United Kingdom   Louis Joseph 1933 Highway 35, #104l Wall, NJ  07719e  C Step 2:- Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, moveiE the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc.) and add your namei as number 6 on the list. e  E Step 3:- Change anything you need to, but try to keep this message aswD close to what you see as possible. Now, post your amended message toE at least 200 news groups. I think there are close to 24,000 groups!!!eD All you need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more moneyF you make!!! This is perfectly legal!! If you have any doubts, refer toC Title18 Sec. 1302 & 1341 of the postal lottery laws. Keep a copy ofSD these steps for yourself and whenever you need money, you can use it again.  C Please remember that this program remains successful because of the-D honesty and the integrity of the participants and by their carefully adhering to the directions!!!   > Look at it this way. If you are of integrity, the program willB continue and the money that so many others have received will come your way!!!   B Note: - You may want to retain every name and address sent to you,C either on your computer or hard copy and keep the notes people sendrC you. This verifies that you are truly providing a service. Also, itsE might be a good Idea to wrap the $1 bills in dark paper to reduce thet risk of mail theft.   E So, as each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed, @ six members will be reimbursed for their participation as a list? developer with one dollar each. Your name will move up the listaF geometrically so that when your name reaches the #1 position, you willD be receiving thousands of dollars in cash!!! What an opportunity forD only $6.00!!! ($1.00 for each of the first six people listed above).  B Send it now, add your own name to the list and your in business!!!    - DIRECTIONS FOR HOW TO POST TO A NEWS GROUP!!!b  F Step 1:- You do not need to re-type this entire message to do your ownD posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this message andC drag your cursor to the bottom of this message and select copy from'B the edit menu. This will copy the entire message into the computer memory.n  D Step 2:- Open a blank note pad file and place your cursor at the topE of the blank page. From the edit menu select paste. This will paste a,E copy of the message into notepad so that you can add your name to thed list.   D Step 3:- Save your new notepad file as a txt file. If you want to doD your posting in a different setting, you'll always have this file to go back to.a  @ Step 4:- Use Netscape or Internet Explorer and try searching for@ various news groups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions, etc.) u  B Step 5:- Visit these message boards and post this message as a newF message by highlighting the text of this message from your notepad andE selecting paste from the edit menu. Fill in the subject, this will beoA the header that everybody sees as they scroll through the list ofpE postings in a particular group. Click the post message button. You'vemE done your first one! Congratulations!!! All you have to do is jump tonE different news groups and post away, after you get the hang of it, itd/ will take about 30 seconds for each news group!   C REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWS GROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL.0 MAKE!!! (But you have to post a minimum of 200).  A That's it!!! You will begin receiving money from around the worldcD within days!!! You may eventually want to rent a P.O. Box due to theE large amount of mail you will receive. If you wish to stay anonymous,nE you can invent a name to use, as long as the postman will deliver it.   0 JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT!!!   E Now the why part. Out of 200 postings, say you receive only 5 repliestD (a very low example). So then you made $5.00 with your name at #6 onB the letter. Now, each of the 5 persons who sent you $1.00 make theB minimum 200 postings, each with your name at #5 and only 5 personsF respond to each of the original 5, that is another $25.00 for you. NowD those 25 each make 200 MINIMUM posts with your name at #4 and only 5C replies each, you will bring in an additional $125.00!!! Now, those'E 125 persons turn around and post the minimum 200 with your name at #3v< and only receive 5 replies each, you will make an additionalB $625.00!!! OK, now here is the fun part, each of those 625 personsC post a minimum 200 messages with your name at #2 and they each onlya receive 5 replies, that D just made you $3,125.00!!! Those 3,125 persons will all deliver thisA message to 200 news groups. If just 5 more reply you will receiveAF $15,625.00!!! All with an original investment of only $6.00!!! AmazingC isn't it!!!! When your name is no longer on the list, you just takecC the latest posting in the news groups and send out another $6.00 top; the names on the list, putting your name at number 6 again.o  @ You must realize that thousands of people all over the world areF joining the internet and reading these messages every day!!! Just likeC you are now!!! So, can you afford $6.00 and see if it really works?dC I'm glad I did!!! People have said, "what if the plan is played outoC and no one sends you the money?" So what!!! What are the chances of F that happening, when there are tons of new honest users and new honestD people who are joining the internet and news groups everyday and areF willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new users, every day!!!  > REMEMBER PLAY HONESTLY AND FAIRLY AND THIS WILL REALLY WORK!!!  D -- Comments/Feedback (please post your feedback/experiences here) --  B Not bad for 1 hr's work....made me around $5320 in roughly 35 days Anthony M - TX  / Hello, I rcvd 269 bucks in the post in 2 weeks.e Dan Miami - FL  E I had to wait around 10 days before I had any results - $13,450 as ofaB 3rd Jan 2003 to date (14th Feb 2003).Am gonna re-post it again for more money!! Del from Alberta - Canadah  ? Only received around 588 in the post the last 2 months since In= started the program but I'd posted to approx. 100 newsgroups.h James P - Manchester, UK  F Cool....didn't expect much out of this "scam" initially but I have pay my credit card billC Mustafa - Jordan   For $6,I made $246 in 2 weeks-% ROMEO2326 - Little Rock, AR -US of A ,  C Hey, just droppin a line to say that after posting to well over 820iC newsgroups on google and my ISP newsgroup server over a period of 4b? 1/2 months ,Ive raked in $54280 . Mucho dinero baby!!!!  Peacet Drew Dallas - TX   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:21:14 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>H Subject: Re: Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED) Message-ID: <3F7A5616.43316F29@istop.com>t   Louis wrote: > = > Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEEDa   Does it run on VMS ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:38:05 GMTs' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>nM Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?e+ Message-ID: <3F79CE46.5E40D800@pacbell.net>h   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:a > L > In article <blag7c$kfg$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:X > >In article <3F789087.7B990DE0@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: > >> > >># > >>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:h > >>>oZ > >>> In article <3F74CF7F.9D265CA@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: > >>> >I > >>> >s& > >>> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >>> >>` > >>> >> In article <vn5s22g2nrds0e@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:5 > >>> >> ><david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in messagev- > >>> >> >news:bkuhsq$dk3$1@news.mdx.ac.uk...uA > >>> >> >> In article <3F71D664.D92AAC37@pacbell.net>, Don Sykest) > >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:p
 > >>> >> >> >T, > >>> >> >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >>> >> >> >>D > >>> >> >> >> In article <3F70934A.3C36DD45@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes) > >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:. > >>> >> >> >> >
 > >>> >> >> >t > >>>r& > >>> You need to be a lot more clear. > >>+ > >>I agree. Please read the latest update.w > >>/ > >>> As far as I am concerned their are upto 4c9 > >>> parties involved in sending and receiving an email.t > >>>c > >>> 1) Client sending system > >>>r > >>> 2) Client's ISP's mailhubt > >>>T! > >>> 3) Receiver's ISP's mailhube > >>>d* > >>> 4) Receiver's mailbox holding system > >>> O > >>> (I am ignoring the fact that within organisations there may well be othervO > >>> mailhubs through which a mail message may pass between 1 and 2 or betweenc > >>> 3 and 4).r > >>>g0 > >>> With current protocols mail may transverse > >>>cN > >>> 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4    (mail passes between organisations central mailhubs) > >>>  > >>> or > >>>tS > >>> 1 -> 3 -> 4         (1st organisation doesn't have central mailhub or doesn'te9 > >>>                      force mail to pass through it)d > >>>  > >>> or > >>>oN > >>> 1 -> 2 -> 4         (2nd organisation does not have a central mailhub or? > >>>                      doesn't force mail to go through it)n > >>>w > >>> or > >>>yP > >>> 1 -> 4              (Neither organisation has a central mailhub or neither9 > >>>                      force mail to go through them)t > >>? > >>Not sure I understand this one. Is #4 listening on port 25?  > >> > >kQ > >4 is where the user's mail is actually delivered and stored. The mail may thenk6 > >be picked up from that mail store via pop, imap etcO > >Typically the central mailhub will deliver the message to that mailstore viaa > >SMTP. > >  > >d > >egh > >m > >    mail from outside > >o
 > >      | > >      |        SMTP > >     \ /  > >t > >t< > >3)    Middlesex university central mailhub - running PMDF > >  > >     |         SMTP	 > >     | 
 > >    \ / > >i/ > >    Internal systems holding users mailboxesc	 > >    eg  > >f > >4)  Sun Systemu > >    PMDF VMS system  > >    Microsoft Exchange server
 > >    etc > >o > >a > >r > >l > >  > E > Ok I've now read the latest version of your protocol. Much clearer.tP > The only question now is exactly what problem this new protocol is supposed to	 > solve ?f  F It's supposed to stop spam by requiring all the meta data up front and; allow end receivers to charge a fee for questionable email.a   > K > Your protocol deals only with transactions between organisation's centrale+ > mailhubs (my parties 2 and 3 from above).i5 > This is not where problems of identification occur.   G This isn't just about identification. It's about putting the control of F the whether the mail is delivered in the hands of the receiving ESP.     > N > Using current protocols a central mailhub knows the ip address of any systemH > talking directly to it and can do a reverse domain lookup. Your secondB > connection from the receiver to the sender adds nothing to this.  A Yes it does, because it's up to the receiving ESP to initiate the F request. If the meta data doesn't pass muster, the receiver leaves the? sender holding the bag: tying up their resources instead of theh receiver's.p  L > At the moment there does exist a small possiblity of spoofing however your; > system is exactly as vulnerable as the current standards r  H I don't agree, because in phase 2 the receiver initiates the connection.H So unless the spoofer can control the DNS I don't see how they will ever get their message delivered.G And if they can control the DNS, they can jolly well force all of us toi. a smut site when we try to http to Google.com.   > - this can be improvedI > in the future by use of server certificates and SSL/TSL to provide moreS$ > trustworthy mutual authentication. > M > The problems of identity are to do with tracking within organisations, with.G > non-compliant and badly configured mail systems and with open relays.-J > These are NOT protocol issues.  Nobody should be running an open-relay -4 > there is even an RFC which states this - RFC 2505.  H I don't run an open relay and I can't stop the 100's of spams per day or@ force anyone to pay if I deliver a spam message to an end user.   G I agree that identity problems WITHIN an organisation are not solved bysD this, but that' by design. IMO all those problems are implementationD issues, ones, I might add, that are just as likely to cause problems using any protocol.i  I > I note in passing that your protocol is actually pretty weak on this :-c > K > "The receiving ESP has no obligation to relay messages outside of its owne	 > domain"/  D The point of this statement is to clarify that this protocol doesn'tD deal with issues of routing beyond the receiver ESP. If they want to2 route beyond their domain, that's their business.    > Q > The only features of your protocol different from current ESMTP implementations0 > are :- > J > 1) Two separate connections  - As stated above this is pretty pointless.  F Not at all pointless as I mentioned. Control of the mail receipt is in the hands of the receiver.  N > 2) The provision of attachment numbers, sizes and mime types up front before >    the actual data is passed. ) >    I'm not sure of the point of this.  t  C The point is to allow the receiver ESP to use this info in deciding G whether to accept this message. Maybe a policy is not to accept msword,-D due to the infection possibilities. Or maybe an organization doesn't want avi or other video. h  ( >   Virus writers and Microsoft products, >    either lie or ignore this information.   F Yes, they can, but if you try to launch an msword attachment as an exe@ it's not going to work. Mail readers use the MIME info to decideH whether, and how, to launch it. So lying isn't going to get you what you want.a  $ > Mime is also not the only encodingP >    mechanism used in mail messages - eg uuencoded mail, pgp encrypted mail etcN >    Also since this is at the central mailhub level only organisational level+ >    checks and blocks can be done anyway. =  G That depends completely on your implementation. For businesses like HP,oH they probably would use organizational-wide parameters. AOL on the otherH hand will defininately not. They will allow each user to specify all the( options for themselves, including price.  ( > I cannot see any reason for wanting to= >    specify individual size blocks for different Mime types.m  H Options. Just because you can't see it now, doesn't mean you won't see aE reason for it in the future. The "cost" to provide it is zero, so whyu not give the option.  Q >    ESMTP can already apply blocks up front for actual size of messages, numbersn >    of recipients etc > # > 3) The provision of fee charging.> > P >    Assuming that 100% identification could be achieved which is a prerequisite >    for any charging system. O >    Firstly the costs per MB or whatever should be up front before any sendinggP >    of from or recipient addresses. THis could be achieved with ESMP with costsF >    being relayed back to the sender in response to the EHLO command.P >    Rather than providing a new protocol the additional commands required for aP >    feebased system could be added to ESMTP - thats the whole point of ESMTP it >    is extensible.s  E Unless ESMTP provides that 2nd phase, it's not going to be effective.e   > J >    In short I don't see that this protocol provides anything not alreadyN >    available in the existing protocols (or which could not be added - in theM >    case of charging). In particular it does not provide any additional help72 >    in identifying the sender of a piece of mail. >   B That's the beauty, I don't have to care who the sender is if I can collect a fee for receiving it!=   -- t   Have VMS, Will Traveln Wire paladin, San Franciscod   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:43:17 GMT-' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> M Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?s+ Message-ID: <3F79CF7E.20753515@pacbell.net>    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:a > j > In article <Ysd2q9KROUC1-pn2-tn8Iv2d2WoN9@news.xs4all.nl>, "Rik Steenwinkel" <rsteenw@xs4all.nl> writes:D > >On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:49:54 UTC, david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >iM > >} How will you enforce this. To work it has to be applied worldwide to all>Q > >} "ISPs" (or at least a majority - since I suppose you would refuse to receive ( > >} mail from those who don't sign up).N > >} However until a majority have signed up it pays for an ISP NOT TO charge.P > >} They will get more customers if they don't charge and their competitor down > >} the road does charge. > >}Q > >} Also until all systems are charging you will be causing chaos since you willcB > >} have destroyed any hope of consistent reliable mail delivery. > >dF > >Leaving the mail fees issue for a moment, Don's mail protocol stillF > >has merit without it. As said, it allows the recipient much greaterF > >control whether to accept (rather: collect) a message or not. Also,H > >the meta-message gives a From: someone@sender.domain , so your MUA orF > >MTA then resolves sender.domain and requests its MX to hand out theH > >actual message associated with the Message-ID in the meta-message. SoI > >then, even if a spammer puts a plausible-looking From: and Subject: inmC > >the meta-message (based on which you decide to accept), the mailCA > >servers in the From: domain won't have the message the spammertG > >intended to send you, and will probably not even have a message with+ > >matching Message-ID at all. > >aO > As the second version of this makes clear this protocol is central mailhub to.G > central mailhub. Neither the sender or receiver are the desktop user.G  G No, but they can act as proxies for the desktop user and if they choose2E to implement it, each desktop user can decide on what, who, when, how  big and how much.C  O > The protocol provides pretty much nothing which isn't already provided by the4O > existing protocols. The second connection provides nothing since the existinggH > protocol allows the receiver to end the connection at any point in theP > dialogue. ESMTP already allows for rejecting messages based on size and numberP > of recipients etc. You can already do reverse lookups of from domains, you canQ > already have lists of blacklisted ip addresses and domains (either generated bytH > the people looking after the mailhubs or using centralised RBL lists).L > The protocol proposed does NOT provide a mechanism for individual users toC > specify additinal blocks to be provided at the receiving mailhub.h >   0 By design, because it's an implementation issue.   -- n   Have VMS, Will Travelt Wire paladin, San Franciscop   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:00:44 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukM Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?s) Message-ID: <bldcgc$khs$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   U In article <3F79CE46.5E40D800@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:r >e >   >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> eM >> In article <blag7c$kfg$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:eY >> >In article <3F789087.7B990DE0@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:r >> >>o >> >> $ >> >>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> >>>[ >> >>> In article <3F74CF7F.9D265CA@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:p >> >>> > >> >>> >' >> >>> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:r	 >> >>> >>ia >> >>> >> In article <vn5s22g2nrds0e@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:e6 >> >>> >> ><david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message. >> >>> >> >news:bkuhsq$dk3$1@news.mdx.ac.uk...B >> >>> >> >> In article <3F71D664.D92AAC37@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes* >> >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >> >>> >> >> >- >> >>> >> >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:f >> >>> >> >> >>hE >> >>> >> >> >> In article <3F70934A.3C36DD45@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes * >> >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >> >>> >> >> >> >e >> >>> >> >> > >> >>>F >> Ok I've now read the latest version of your protocol. Much clearer.Q >> The only question now is exactly what problem this new protocol is supposed toi
 >> solve ? >fG >It's supposed to stop spam by requiring all the meta data up front andt< >allow end receivers to charge a fee for questionable email. >  >> qL >> Your protocol deals only with transactions between organisation's central, >> mailhubs (my parties 2 and 3 from above).6 >> This is not where problems of identification occur. >rH >This isn't just about identification. It's about putting the control ofG >the whether the mail is delivered in the hands of the receiving ESP.  r >aN Thats what I'm trying to say. This is NO different from the current protocols.     >> hO >> Using current protocols a central mailhub knows the ip address of any systemrI >> talking directly to it and can do a reverse domain lookup. Your secondaC >> connection from the receiver to the sender adds nothing to this.l >eB >Yes it does, because it's up to the receiving ESP to initiate theG >request. If the meta data doesn't pass muster, the receiver leaves thea@ >sender holding the bag: tying up their resources instead of the >receiver's. >-  H What resources ? The spammer system is no longer involved at this point.O The sender "central mailhub" may have one port opened for listening - but since.C it can specify the same port for all connections that's no problem.o    I Please tell me where the extra control for the receiver from this second t# connection comes from as against :-n  $ sender                      receiver$ ======                      ========  0 Setup connection to         Listening on port 25 port 25 on receiveri  F                             Check incoming IP number against blacklistI                             Send back 5xx response if blacklisted and enda5                             connection if blacklistedf                             >                             Do reverse lookup of sender in DNSM                             Send back 5xx response and end connection if not  2                             in DNS or blacklisted                                > EHLO hostname               Send back supported Message sizes,.                             max recipients etc  ; From : <xxxx@domain>        DO lookup of from domain in DNSn;                             check if exists or on blacklist ?                             check From address not on blacklist3J                             If checks fail send back 5xx response and end '                             connection.e    3 RCPT TO: <yyyy@zzzz>        Check against relaying.i3                             Check known local user.iI                             If checks fail send back 5xx response and endE&                             connection   etc     GN The receiver is in compete control. If it doesn't like something it sends back) a 5xx response and closes the connection.                                  M >> At the moment there does exist a small possiblity of spoofing however yourn< >> system is exactly as vulnerable as the current standards  >hI >I don't agree, because in phase 2 the receiver initiates the connection.sI >So unless the spoofer can control the DNS I don't see how they will evert >get their message delivered.aH >And if they can control the DNS, they can jolly well force all of us to/ >a smut site when we try to http to Google.com.   I Yes as I say a small chance of spoofing which is exactly the same for thel> current protocol since it can do exactly the same DNS lookup. M Since this is at the central mailhub rather than the desktop sender level thecN chances of anyone wanting to spoof this are pretty remote anyway. Any spoofingA would be done between the desktop system and the central mailhub.a  L As to controlling the DNS and redirecting to smut sites - yes it happens allK the time. Though the preference is usually to redirect to their own versioncE of a companies site so they can gather credit card and other details.)       >  >> - this can be improvedeJ >> in the future by use of server certificates and SSL/TSL to provide more% >> trustworthy mutual authentication.r >>N >> The problems of identity are to do with tracking within organisations, withH >> non-compliant and badly configured mail systems and with open relays.K >> These are NOT protocol issues.  Nobody should be running an open-relay -s5 >> there is even an RFC which states this - RFC 2505.e >pI >I don't run an open relay and I can't stop the 100's of spams per day or A >force anyone to pay if I deliver a spam message to an end user.   >o  N But apart from the fee paying idea which won't work unless you really know whoL to charge the fee to your protocol doesn't provide anything extra which will control spammers.i  H >I agree that identity problems WITHIN an organisation are not solved byE >this, but that' by design. IMO all those problems are implementation0E >issues, ones, I might add, that are just as likely to cause problems  >using any protocol. >   O What I am saying is your protocol is irrelevent. Communications between centraloL mailhubs are already adequately controlled. It is the injection of spam intoI the sending central mailhubs and direct sending of mail bypassing centrale! mailhubs which need controlling. nK Unfortunately even after solving those problems we will still be left with tN open-relays and misconfigured or non-compliant systems. The systems which wereJ being put in place to handle those - blacklists - have been hounded out ofI existence by court proceedings and latterly by targeted denial of servicel attacks.      J >> I note in passing that your protocol is actually pretty weak on this :- >> oL >> "The receiving ESP has no obligation to relay messages outside of its own
 >> domain" >nE >The point of this statement is to clarify that this protocol doesn't E >deal with issues of routing beyond the receiver ESP. If they want toy3 >route beyond their domain, that's their business. r >a  5 NO system should ever be configured as an open-relay.      >> tR >> The only features of your protocol different from current ESMTP implementations	 >> are :-f >> .K >> 1) Two separate connections  - As stated above this is pretty pointless.  >mG >Not at all pointless as I mentioned. Control of the mail receipt is inu >the hands of the receiver.7  K Control in the current protocol is in the hands of the receiver without anyd need for a second connection.a   >tO >> 2) The provision of attachment numbers, sizes and mime types up front before   >>    the actual data is passed.* >>    I'm not sure of the point of this.   >iD >The point is to allow the receiver ESP to use this info in decidingH >whether to accept this message. Maybe a policy is not to accept msword,E >due to the infection possibilities. Or maybe an organization doesn'ts >want avi or other video.  >d) >>   Virus writers and Microsoft products - >>    either lie or ignore this information.   > G >Yes, they can, but if you try to launch an msword attachment as an exegA >it's not going to work. Mail readers use the MIME info to decideoI >whether, and how, to launch it. So lying isn't going to get you what yout >want. >lD Microsoft products ignore the MIME type they use the file extension.K This is why most mailhubs have a large - ever growing - list of banned file  extensions.l    % >> Mime is also not the only encodingsQ >>    mechanism used in mail messages - eg uuencoded mail, pgp encrypted mail etceO >>    Also since this is at the central mailhub level only organisational levelu, >>    checks and blocks can be done anyway.  >sH >That depends completely on your implementation. For businesses like HP,I >they probably would use organizational-wide parameters. AOL on the othertI >hand will defininately not. They will allow each user to specify all theo) >options for themselves, including price.' >aO How ? Your protocol is central mailhub to central mailhub it says nothing about 2 any mechanism for a user to request these options.    ) >> I cannot see any reason for wanting to > >>    specify individual size blocks for different Mime types. > I >Options. Just because you can't see it now, doesn't mean you won't see a6F >reason for it in the future. The "cost" to provide it is zero, so why >not give the option.u >$R >>    ESMTP can already apply blocks up front for actual size of messages, numbers >>    of recipients etc  >>  $ >> 3) The provision of fee charging. >> eQ >>    Assuming that 100% identification could be achieved which is a prerequisiteh >>    for any charging system.P >>    Firstly the costs per MB or whatever should be up front before any sendingQ >>    of from or recipient addresses. THis could be achieved with ESMP with costssG >>    being relayed back to the sender in response to the EHLO command.hQ >>    Rather than providing a new protocol the additional commands required for a#Q >>    feebased system could be added to ESMTP - thats the whole point of ESMTP ito >>    is extensible. >wF >Unless ESMTP provides that 2nd phase, it's not going to be effective. >   M As I have said time and time again your second connection provides absolutely$ nothing.       >> eK >>    In short I don't see that this protocol provides anything not alreadynO >>    available in the existing protocols (or which could not be added - in theeN >>    case of charging). In particular it does not provide any additional help3 >>    in identifying the sender of a piece of mail.n >> t >dC >That's the beauty, I don't have to care who the sender is if I can   >collect a fee for receiving it! >a  M Good luck in trying to collect that fee. The lawyers will make a lot of moneyo I doubt you will.m  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   >--  >h >Have VMS, Will Travel >Wire paladin, San Francisco >  >(paladinATalphaseDOTcom)o   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:05:00 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukM Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?t) Message-ID: <bldcob$khs$2@news.mdx.ac.uk>   U In article <3F79CF7E.20753515@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:t >s >l  >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >>  k >> In article <Ysd2q9KROUC1-pn2-tn8Iv2d2WoN9@news.xs4all.nl>, "Rik Steenwinkel" <rsteenw@xs4all.nl> writes:rE >> >On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:49:54 UTC, david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:t >> >N >> >} How will you enforce this. To work it has to be applied worldwide to allR >> >} "ISPs" (or at least a majority - since I suppose you would refuse to receive) >> >} mail from those who don't sign up). O >> >} However until a majority have signed up it pays for an ISP NOT TO charge.iQ >> >} They will get more customers if they don't charge and their competitor down  >> >} the road does charge.w >> >} R >> >} Also until all systems are charging you will be causing chaos since you willC >> >} have destroyed any hope of consistent reliable mail delivery.g >> >G >> >Leaving the mail fees issue for a moment, Don's mail protocol still G >> >has merit without it. As said, it allows the recipient much greaterhG >> >control whether to accept (rather: collect) a message or not. Also,aI >> >the meta-message gives a From: someone@sender.domain , so your MUA orsG >> >MTA then resolves sender.domain and requests its MX to hand out thesI >> >actual message associated with the Message-ID in the meta-message. So J >> >then, even if a spammer puts a plausible-looking From: and Subject: inD >> >the meta-message (based on which you decide to accept), the mailB >> >servers in the From: domain won't have the message the spammerH >> >intended to send you, and will probably not even have a message with >> >matching Message-ID at all.0 >> >P >> As the second version of this makes clear this protocol is central mailhub toH >> central mailhub. Neither the sender or receiver are the desktop user. >iH >No, but they can act as proxies for the desktop user and if they chooseF >to implement it, each desktop user can decide on what, who, when, how >big and how much. >tP >> The protocol provides pretty much nothing which isn't already provided by theP >> existing protocols. The second connection provides nothing since the existingI >> protocol allows the receiver to end the connection at any point in thenQ >> dialogue. ESMTP already allows for rejecting messages based on size and numberdQ >> of recipients etc. You can already do reverse lookups of from domains, you candR >> already have lists of blacklisted ip addresses and domains (either generated byI >> the people looking after the mailhubs or using centralised RBL lists).oM >> The protocol proposed does NOT provide a mechanism for individual users topD >> specify additinal blocks to be provided at the receiving mailhub. >> o >a1 >By design, because it's an implementation issue.g >o  N Like getting mail from a mail store is an implementation issue which is why we" have protocols like POP and IMAP ?  H If you are going to tout this as an advantage of your system you need toL provide a mechanism to accomplish it. Saying everything is an implementation issue is a cop out.t  
 David Webb VMS and unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University     >--  >m >Have VMS, Will Travel >Wire paladin, San Francisco >- >(paladinATalphaseDOTcom)    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:41:26 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>3 Subject: Prohibiting use of microsoft address booksm) Message-ID: <3F79DC63.3369ECBE@istop.com>y  L I have read some articles recently that state that corporations are startingM to realise that providing email to all its employees is starting to cost moreiM than the value of the service, due to spam and viruses (and when those aren't  the problem, jokes etc).  K Considering that the vast majority of viruses are propagated because of thedM use of microsoft software and because the virus uses a user's address book aspM a list of people to distribute the virus to, I have the following suggestion:t  E any serious corporation should add a signature to all outbound emailsoM prohibiting the recipient from adding the sender's information to his addressn2 book if the recipient is using MICROSOFT software.  J That would send a very strong message to all companies that if they run onN microsoft software, they are considered a threath to the internet and that the9 sender wants no junk/viruses coming from microsoft users.n   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:25:52 +0100u) From: Antonio Carlini <arcarlini@iee.org>cE Subject: Re: Question: In DCL Can One Check To See If A File Is Open? ? Message-ID: <JUjeb.3541$QH3.2921@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>c   Charlie Hammond wrote:m > In article <TJJcb.4437$%G1.1314@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, Antonio Carlini <arcarlini@iee.org> writes:tB >>A judicious SET MESSAGE and F$MESSAGE would "comment" it just as> >>well wouldn't it? Or am I just being pedantic in my old age? >  > C > At run time, if the error occured, but not of much use to someonee > reading the code.   # This is an example of what I meant:   *    $ SET MESSAGE SYS$MESSAGE:CLIUTLMSG.EXE+    $ SEARCH somefile for_something /OUT=NL:V    $ msg = $STATUS1    $ IF F$MESSAGE(msg,"IDENT") .eqs. "%NOMATCHES"g    ...  : and so on for other messages. Admittedly finding the right7 message file can be fun (but I have a command procedureo( handy for when I cannot find it myself).   Antoniog   --   ---------------i- Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.orgt   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:36:47 -0500 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>t' Subject: Re: RSX.EXE under OpenVMS 7.3? 3 Message-ID: <3F79E95F.B85A919D@applied-synergy.com>H   Antonio Carlini wrote: >  > Howard Shubs wrote:L > H > > How can it support instructions which the VAX doesn't actually have?G > > RSX.EXE, as I understand it, is OS support, not hardware emulation.t > F > I couldn't find the AME SPD but the one I did find suggested that it> > emulated stuff (a bit like FX!32) if the h/w did not support > compatibility mode.m > I > But as I've never used it, I'm willing to stand corrected here, and the B > original poster is back to needed 1984 hardware or earlier. SIMH@ > emulates a KA650 or KA655 (IIRC) and so will probably not haveE > compatibility mode. Charon-VAX emulates a MicroVAX 3100 so the same E > probably applies. TS10 started out as a uVAX II emulator (IIRC) andp3 > again, probably does not have compatibility mode.   F In VMS 4.0, the compatiblity mode code was removed from VMS and made a@ layered product.  AME provided the RSX interface and included an: emulator so that RSX code could be run on the MicroVAX II.  E FX!32 works as a code translator, converting the IA32 code into AlphaaC code.  I think that AME is a pure emulator and does not convert the6 PDP11 code into VAX code.2  G -----------------------------------------------------------------------a$ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------   Date: 30 Sep 2003 15:07:25 GMT< From: gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) Subject: rsync for OpenVMS?e0 Message-ID: <blc67d$fe8$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>   Hello,  O I know this has been asked in November 2002 already. But now it would be usefultK for me to have it. Is there any progress? I need only the part that acceptsi connections.   Regards,    Christoph Gartmann    -- SE  Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452   ImmunbiologieI  Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot det  D-79011  Freiburg, Germany 9                http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 02:48:05 GMTr From: healyzh@aracnet.comv Subject: Re: rsync for OpenVMS?0, Message-ID: <bldf95121ri@enews1.newsguy.com>  = Christoph Gartmann <gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens> wrote:mQ > I know this has been asked in November 2002 already. But now it would be usefulsM > for me to have it. Is there any progress? I need only the part that acceptsv > connections.  I As far as I'm aware there isn't a port available.  What you can do is the G following.  Export the disk you want to rsync data to (at least I think I that's what you're wanting to do) via NFS.  Mount the disk via NFS on theyK system that contains the data and then run rsync on that system to sync thegL data to the NFS disk.  This obviously assumes that one of the two systems is
 running Unix.p   			Zanet   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 03:44:15 GMT - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>2 Subject: Re: rsync for OpenVMS? : Message-ID: <j4seb.531$qj6.500560@news1.news.adelphia.net>   Christoph Gartmann wrote:g > Hello, > Q > I know this has been asked in November 2002 already. But now it would be usefuloM > for me to have it. Is there any progress? I need only the part that accepts  > connections.  3 I have made no progress lately due to lack of time..  F The current rsync() code assmes the presence of a UNIX shell, the RSH * command, and support for a working fork().  F It is so dependent on the fork() call and the UNIX shell that it will . take a bit of a rewrite to move it to OpenVMS.  4 For that, a documentation of the protocol is needed.  C Other than that, it was not too hard to get to compile and link on sK OpenVMS.  I could even generate OpenVMS help files from the man page files.C  D An OpenVMS port would either have to be AST based, or POSIX threads G based.  A POSIX threads based port would probably get support from the   users of other platforms.9  G RSYNC is an offshoot of the SAMBA project.  It is not related to SAMBA  3 other than having a common parent, Andrew Tridgell.a  7 The project has a home page of: http://rsync.samba.org/@  ! There is a mailing list about it.   B The quick summary of rsync for those that do not know about it is:  I RSYNC efficiently keeps two directory trees in sync.  It scans the files e< in both directory trees and checksums the sections of files.  H Only the changed portions are updated.  Many of the popular open source , projects are available from an rsync server.  H Some of these projects maintain a build farm that of servers updated by I rsync that respond to a trigger that rebuilds the project on change, and CI if it the build suceeds runs a test suite.  Any failures are immediately  G fed back to the people that checked in the latest round of changes and  $ they then need to fix their changes.  I A working rsync would be a major step for OpenVMS systems to be added to   these build farms.  F rsync is mainly for text files.  It can be used for binary files, but H because of the algorithms used, there is a statically small possibility I of undetected corruption.  Because the set of characters used for source  H code is much smaller than for pure binary, it is very unlikely that any 0 corruption of a text file would not get notices.    ( The challenges for rsync on OpenVMS are:   1. Overcome the fork() issue.c  H 2. A test server is needed to validate an implementation.  Initially it F would need to be one of the platforms that rsync supports in order to $ make sure that it will interoperate.  F 3. Add support for converting text files from stream-LF to the format / that the OpenVMS text editors support and back.>  H 4. Add support for all OpenVMS file types in a way that the files could   be stored on a non OpenVMS host.   -John  wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only>   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:15:17 +0000 (UTC)+ From: Esa Laitinen <punkki@suespammers.org>  Subject: Re: rsync for OpenVMS?m0 Message-ID: <slrnbnkl6j.r4o.punkki@laitinen.org>  ; On 2003-10-01, John E. Malmberg <wb8tyw@qsl.network> wrote:mJ > 2. A test server is needed to validate an implementation.  Initially it H > would need to be one of the platforms that rsync supports in order to & > make sure that it will interoperate.  E Tried to e-mail you, but you didn't provide a working e-mail address.   G Anyway, I can help you with this, if you're willing and able to do the l work ;-)   esae --  F The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send ? unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my  D suespammers.org address. It's my life: http://www.laitinen.org/blog/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:14:51 -0700v1 From: Greg Cagle <news@*removethis*gregcagle.com>h Subject: Sun takes a hit/ Message-ID: <vnk02unmsosl97@corp.supernews.com>o  8 Andrew! What's happening to Sun stock? What's this about/ a $1B charge for LAST quarter? Can you explain?    -- e
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:26:53 -0500t1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: Sun takes a hit' Message-ID: <3F7A2D5D.F9ADE3D5@fsi.net>s   Greg Cagle wrote:n > : > Andrew! What's happening to Sun stock? What's this about1 > a $1B charge for LAST quarter? Can you explain?.   MUST he?   -- u David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systemsw http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/o   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:53:25 +0000 (UTC)d From: elvira@onairos.esh Subject: Testeo de Newst0 Message-ID: <blcqg5$cp1$1@localhost.localdomain>   testeo de news servert	 Escuse meh -- g Elvira Fotos Eroticas% http://www.personal.able.es/ensorianop   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:46:38 GMTe# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)aB Subject: Re: UCX Ping can't be used by user with NETBMX and TMPMBX2 Message-ID: <OYleb.6035$Yi1.2216@news.cpqcorp.net>  \ In article <blbje2$sb5$1@news5.jaring.my>, "Yong Boon, Lim" <limyb@megasteel.com.my> writes:A :   As l try to use UCX to ping LOCALHOST or one of my client PC,i :   l get no feedback from UCX.   C   When posting, please remember to include information such as the eA   TCP/IP Services version (a pre-V5 version, apparently) and ECO.l-   Also OpenVMS VAX or Alpha, and the version.y  A   You can use security auditing and security alarms to determine  ;   the particular privileges involved, as a general comment.h  C   Per the Ask The Wizard topic (913), ping requires OPER privilege.   N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqvN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.come   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:52:13 -0500i( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com> Subject: Re: Virtul Tape Driveru/ Message-ID: <00A26AFB.A96592E6.2@tachysoft.com>   % >Reply-To: wmr282@hotmail.com (w m r)t  ` >Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com> wrote in message news:<00A264D0.22DC3792.2@tachysoft.com>... > 3 >> Ah, got it.  That's exactly what I use TS11 for.t >rF >I seem to remember (writing) that program years ago (15+).  It's kind= >of strange (good) that someone is using it!  It did the job.f  K Yes, of course it has changed radically since then, as have tapesys and the M other products.  thruway still has a lot of the original code (except for theoK transport modules), but huge chunks of tapesys and jb have been rewritten. e, tapesys 6.1 is radically different from 5.2.     >s/ >You have been busy!  How you doing these days?  >   L Well, what can I say?  I'm still programming totally in vms.  I would ratherM change professions, such as digging ditches or selling used cars, rather thany/ deal with eunuchs or especially the billyworld.p  L That's what I like about java.  It allows me to target code *for* a platformK without actually having to develop *on* that platform.  The customer has toa, live with an unstable platform, but I don't.O ===============================================================================MN Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html    O =============================================================================== H Randolph Duke (in Trading Places): "Mother always said you were greedy."1    Mortimer Duke: "She meant it as a compliment!"    ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:43:16 +0000 (UTC)pP From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)* Subject: VMS graphics monitors for dummies$ Message-ID: <blcpt4$pi7$1@online.de>  I I usually have a trusty VT320 as the console connected to a serial line, iE usually with a double MMJ cable.  I have a couple of ALPHAs with the sB monitors and cables that came with them as the only machines with  graphics monitors on them.  ; Now I'm rearranging things and want to mix and match a bit.P  E There seem to be 3 types of connections on the machines: 3 rather big @ holes with pins inside them, something that looks like a monitorF connector on a PC (maybe it is the same thing), and a 15-pin connectorE (which looks like the one used for a keyboard/mouse combination thingrD where each plugs into a block on a cord and the cord plugs in to theD 15-pin connector on the machine).  On the monitor side, I have some H cables with 3 BNC connectors (or one if it's mono) and possibly another F type with the PC-like connector for the machine on the other end (not * sure; I don't have it in front of me now).  H Can I assume that any combination will work if I have the correct cable?H (Provided that such a cable exists, i.e. not one specially made just so 
 it will fit!)'  E Will a "standard PC monitor" work with any VAX or ALPHA I might have?   B Can I damage anything by trying out combinations which won't work?  B Are there any other differences besides the obvious physical ones?   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:22:28 GMTa# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)d. Subject: Re: VMS graphics monitors for dummies2 Message-ID: <oumeb.6037$2p1.5774@news.cpqcorp.net>  w In article <blcpt4$pi7$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:o  F :There seem to be 3 types of connections on the machines: 3 rather big :holes with pins inside them,   1   That one, I've seen on TURBOchannel hardware...   C :                               something that looks like a monitortG :connector on a PC (maybe it is the same thing), and a 15-pin connector:F :(which looks like the one used for a keyboard/mouse combination thingE :where each plugs into a block on a cord and the cord plugs in to thed# :15-pin connector on the machine). t  E   Check the FAQ to start with, for general information on this topic.m  D   As for the interfaces, newer stuff uses VGA-compatible connectionsE   with either the 15-pin D connector or with the five BNC connection.f@   The three BNC connection is moderately compatible with genericD   monitors, but requires the monitor support synchronization signalsD   on the green wire (synch-on-green) -- the five BNC wiring variant C   has seperate horizontal (h-synch) and vertical (v-synch) signals.m  I :Can I assume that any combination will work if I have the correct cable?   G   With newer systems, generally yes.  With older systems, compatabilityaD   is rather less likely without a video signal adapter -- if one is !   available.  Please see the FAQ.t  F :Will a "standard PC monitor" work with any VAX or ALPHA I might have?  A   With newer systems, generally yes.  With older systems, again, e   please see the FAQ.t  C :Can I damage anything by trying out combinations which won't work?d  D   Donno.  I'd tend to doubt it -- but wiring weirdness being what itD   is, some sort of damage is certainly conceivable.  (I remember oneE   tradeshow where we were seeing ground potential differences betweenlB   the power for the displays and for the the servers, and we were A   getting monstrous sparks on the video shields.  But I digress.)cA   *Usually*, you won't damage anything with swapping plugs -- but <   you can under- or over-drive the monitors, and there is no8   guarantee that the pinouts and the signals will match.  C :Are there any other differences besides the obvious physical ones?e  B   Over-driving the monitor can fry it.  There are both pin-out andA   signal-level differences for the keyboard and mouse protocols,  +   too.  There are likely other differences.l  ?   If you want to pursue this, we'll need to know the particular 5   graphics controllers involved in this discussion...     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faquN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comt   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 03:08:12 GMT - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>p. Subject: Re: VMS graphics monitors for dummies: Message-ID: <wyreb.519$qj6.488606@news1.news.adelphia.net>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:. > G > Will a "standard PC monitor" work with any VAX or ALPHA I might have?a  9 The OpenVMS FAQ has a section that answers that question.e  D See it from a link at http://www.hp.com/go/openvms and other places.  D > Can I damage anything by trying out combinations which won't work?   Yes.  D > Are there any other differences besides the obvious physical ones?  F Yes.  The most obvious ones are that some monitors will be damaged if I you run them at the wrong sync rates.  The damage may not be immediately i visible.  ( The signal levels may also be important.   -Johnl wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only>   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:26:27 -04002' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>"; Subject: RE: VMS Technical Update seminar (the Netherlands).R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB0D877D@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Clubley=20: > [mailto:clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP]=20" > Sent: September 30, 2003 1:18 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  >=205 > In article <3F78B16A.6030603@home.nl>, Dirk Munk=20  > <munk@home.nl> writes: > >=20I > > Brad McCusker gave us a great presentation about the Unix shell in=20h? > > VMS. In a couple of years time, VMS will have a complete=20s > Unix shell,=20I > > and can then be used as any true Unix (without the security bugs I=20p> > > hope). At the same time it will remain VMS, and we will=20 > still have our=20tA > > trusted VMS DCL commands. (I only hope all the ported Unix=20d< > stuff we now have will also get a true VMS CLI interface).8 > > This presentation was also greeted with enthousiasm. > >=20 >=20B > I, for one, am looking forward to this. The idea of been able=20 > to compile and; > run the latest Linux application on VMS with few or no=20  > changes is a veryg > nice one.  >=20 > Simon. >=20 > --=20hF > Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP      =20B > SCO: Proudly pushing Microsoft down to #2 on the list of most=20 > disliked companies >=20   Simon,   Re: UNIX portability kits ..  	 Why wait?e   :-)r  
 Check out:B http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/porting.html and ..  & http://h71000.www7.hp.com/portability/H "While the OpenVMS UNIX Portability Initiative eases the porting of UNIXF applications to OpenVMS, it also facilitates the porting of many otherH types of applications to OpenVMS. Linux applications, Java applications,C and most Open Source applications benefit from the UNIX Portability  initiative.   G To accomplish its goals, the UNIX Portability Initiative provides a seto@ of UNIX (POSIX) interfaces and tools within OpenVMS in a native,H integrated fashion. This eliminates performance issues associated with a; layered emulator solution and enhances interoperability.=20=   *Goals*o  + Native OpenVMS behavior remains the default2  C OpenVMS can be like any other "flavor" of UNIX (for example, HP-UX,a Tru64, Solaris, AIX, Linux)   F Cost of porting from UNIX to OpenVMS is equal or comparable to portingC one "flavor" of UNIX to another (for example,from Solaris to HP-UX)      Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultanto HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477x Email: kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcomf. (remove the DOT's and AT for email address)=20 =20s   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:34:22 GMTc% From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com> 7 Subject: Re: VMS731_DISMOU-V0100 - What are the issues?>7 Message-ID: <yaqeb.2571$pg7.1198@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>   ) <norm.raphael@metso.com> wrote in message 9 news:OFF68391DB.A731A196-ON85256DB1.005DC187@metso.com...l >3 >  > H > If one patches to get the retro behavior, what would happen at V7.3-2? > F > But more to the point, why would one want one or the other behavior?  K The EVA and Virtualization of the storage.   If you are expanding a volume, J you currently have to expand the volume, and then re-init the drive at theI VMS level to have the system re-write the bitmap for INDEXF.SYS that saysc8 that your volume is now compsed of xxxxGB of disk space.   >n > -Normo > ------------= > TITLE: OpenVMS VMS731_DISMOU-V0100 Alpha V7.3-1 ECO Summaryd > + >      System/Cluster Reboot Necessary:  Noy >n' >      Installation Rating: INSTALL_3 :h? >        To be installed by customers experiencing the problemsr3 >                                        corrected.o >r  > PROBLEMS ADDRESSED IN THIS KIT >t7 > New problems addressed in the VMS731_DISMOU-V0100 kith >c! >      o  VMS731_DISMOU-V0100.RNOw > I >                A change made for OpenVMS V7.3-1 to delete write bitmaps G >                when a virtual unit is dismounted.  The purpose of theuJ >                change was to return memory to the system.  However, someI >                customers depend on the master bitmap remaining, even iff/ >                the virtual unit is dimounted.n >yI >                Since customers who wish to have the bitmaps deleted caniH >                manually delete them, this change removes the code thatD >                deletes the bitmap and reverts functionality to theE >                pre-V7.3-1 state.  Customers that want to delete anydF >                unwanted bitmaps can do so via SHOW BITMAP and DELETEC >                BITMAP commands.  These commands have been part ofu& >                OpenVMS since V7.2-2. >e6 >                Images Affected:[SYSLIB]DISMNTSHR.EXE >s >o >    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:36:30 GMTl3 From: wallacethinmintr@eircom.net (Russell Wallace)d% Subject: Re: [5] Counter Googling :-(i0 Message-ID: <3f7a58bf.110801802@news.eircom.net>  , On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 02:43:59 -0400, JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote:  N >Just like serious corporations fairly quickly learned that they couldn't SPAMO >newsgroups or email, I think that serious corporations will quickly learn that K >they can't google their customers. If I checked into a hotel and it becameiK >obvious that they had done their research about me, I would feel extremely K >ucomfortable. Why did they want to know so much about me ? I'd say that ite( >would be a form of invasion of privacy.  E I disagree that it's an invasion of privacy. Google isn't like hiringo? a detective - it can only find _public_ information. If there'suE information about you that you regard as private, why did you make it  publicly available online?   -- r "Sore wa himitsu desu."s To reply by email, removeh the small snack from address.t! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallacem   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:33:15 -0400a* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>% Subject: Re: [5] Counter Googling :-( ( Message-ID: <3F7A66F3.C9EAB1E@istop.com>   Russell Wallace wrote:G > I disagree that it's an invasion of privacy. Google isn't like hiringtA > a detective - it can only find _public_ information. If there's G > information about you that you regard as private, why did you make itd > publicly available online?  F When I post in newsgroups, I don't specifically agree that my posts beM archived forever. When I posted prior to the formation of google (deja news), < I had no idea that my posts would be archived in the future.  M Ethically, when someone uses telephone books to find my address and telephonenL number to contact me, it si proper use of that information. But when someoneN does the same and posts that information in newsgroups along with all sorts ofD fabulated stories, that is invasion of privacy. It isn't so much the; information, it so why you seek it and what you do with it.d  M The problem is that inexperienced people will do a search an see all sorts ofrD posts and not really ask to see full headers to try to see if it was legitimate or not.  K google is like a credit agency that lets anyone add any information to youraD file, except you have no control over it and it is archived forever.   ------------------------------    Date: 30 Sep 2003 17:34:20 -0700. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)N Subject: [OT] Misleading article in NY Times re security and operating systems= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0309301634.371b296f@posting.google.com>    In Monday's NY Times:t   Business section  6 Title: To Fix Software Flaws, Microsoft Invites Attack  8 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/technology/29SOFT.html  = "Other [(Non-Windows)] operating systems like Linux, Unix andsE Macintosh, experts say, all have security vulnerabilities. ""But they F don't get the attention and the attacks because, unlike Microsoft, theD other technologies are not deployed on 300 million computers,"" said@ Russ Cooper, a security expert at TruSecure, a computer security3 company. ""This is not just Microsoft's problem""."e  @ While there is some truth to the attacks being primarily againstE Microsoft systems because of their ubiquity, somehow I think we'd allnB be better off if some other OS (preferably VMS, of course) were asF ubiquitous instead. I think one could say that these attacks also tendA to be *successful* *because* they are against Microsoft software.eE Also, this article talks as if there is no secure software to be had.y You are invited to have a read.o  @ If you want to try to inform the public of the benefits of using> "other operating systems" and other software, you can write toC letters@nytimes.com. I don't know if explicitly mentioning VMS is an) good idea or not. Brevity helps, I think.    Alan E. Feldmans   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.543 ************************