1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 02 Oct 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 545       Contents:
 Re: <None> Re: affordable VMS Re: affordable VMS Re: affordable VMS Re: affordable VMS6 Re: Description of fork(), was: Re: rsync for OpenVMS?2 Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create?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...)2 How can I tell my Tomcat 2.1 upgrade did anything? Re: How to uninstall?  Re: How to uninstall? 7 Re: HP to Linux users: "Go ahead.  I've got your back." - Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows? - Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows? - Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows? - Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows? % Re: ITRC Download site - some answers % Re: ITRC Download site - some answers % Re: ITRC Download site - some answers  Joining Encompass  Re: Nice touch, AMD - OT: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows? 1 Re: OT: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows? 7 Re: Preserving decwindows session through disconnection D Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ? Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats! Re: Read this and weap, twats!; Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS) ; Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS) ; Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS) ; Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS)  shadowing the system disk  Re: shadowing the system disk  Re: shadowing the system disk < Upgrading Tomcat - will my configuration files be preserved?@ Re: Upgrading Tomcat - will my configuration files be preserved?% Re: VMS graphics monitors for dummies 2 Re: VMS JVM implementation of sub-process deletion2 Re: VMS Technical Update seminar (the Netherlands)  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:51:46 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> Subject: Re: <None> - Message-ID: <87smmcvir1.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   + p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) writes:   % > Anyone any idea WTF an FCC file is?   3 File Carbon Copy. Like a CC: list, but into a file.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 11:05:26 -0700 1 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)  Subject: Re: affordable VMS = Message-ID: <cf15391e.0310011005.2907f0dc@posting.google.com>   h Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<$m2MhdUJRCeq@eisner.encompasserve.org>... > So what machine is that ?    It's described as:  ! rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server   ? rx2600 1.3GHz CPU server, 1GB DDR memory quad, 36GB 15K Hotplug C Ultra320 LP Disk Drive, DVD-ROM Slimline Drive, tower bezel upgrade    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:38:03 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: affordable VMS J Message-ID: <fHIeb.181736$Lnr1.41148@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   David J. Dachtera wrote: > Bob Koehler wrote: >>@ >> In article <cf15391e.0309301152.2ca22f4c@posting.google.com>,6 >> keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes: >>1 >>> From the latest issue of the DSPP newsletter:  >>> D >>> "New and Improved Equipment Program Benefits for DSPP Members in >>> North America  >>> B >>> The DSPP Equipment Program is pleased to announce exciting new( >>> discounts and offerings for members: >>> ... E >>>   o  OpenVMS I64 Itanium2 server bundle- Special pricing at under  >>> $5K" >>F >>    Now that sounds official.  Good to hear, but is it a developer's! >>    bundle, or just the server?  > < > ...and will comparable pricing be available for end-users? > " > Remember: no market, no product.      H No quite......all they can build will wind up in a landfill someplace if they don't create a market.    Advertising. Advertising. Advertising.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:32:07 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: affordable VMS ' Message-ID: <3F7B55E7.53CBD676@fsi.net>    Richard Brodie wrote:  > ` > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message news:3F7A2607.39D12B9B@fsi.net... >   > > Well, fine for DSPP members. > > & > > Now: what can we do for end-users? > > G > > (You remember end users, right? ...the people who make DSPP members  > > possible?) > G > It's a bit premature to talk about end users, while a non-developer's 2 > release of VMS on Itanium is still some way off.  E However, VAX is more or less history while Alpha is on death row. So, 3 the issue is, and has been for many years, current.    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:35:34 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: affordable VMS & Message-ID: <3F7B56B6.D60CF4C@fsi.net>   Bob Koehler wrote: > s > In article <cf15391e.0309301152.2ca22f4c@posting.google.com>, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes:  > 1 > > From the latest issue of the DSPP newsletter:  > > J > > "New and Improved Equipment Program Benefits for DSPP Members in North > > America  > > B > > The DSPP Equipment Program is pleased to announce exciting new( > > discounts and offerings for members: > > ... J > >   o  OpenVMS I64 Itanium2 server bundle- Special pricing at under $5K" > E >    Now that sounds official.  Good to hear, but is it a developer's   >    bundle, or just the server?  : ...and will comparable pricing be available for end-users?    Remember: no market, no product.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:28:07 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) ? Subject: Re: Description of fork(), was: Re: rsync for OpenVMS? 2 Message-ID: <bVFeb.6114$ei2.3611@news.cpqcorp.net>  x In article <UPQ5FSiYFgdh@eisner.encompasserve.org>, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) writes:p :In article <ble1jl$4pb$5@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) writes: :>    :> What does fork() actually do? : @ :Information on what fork() actually does is available online...I :As you can see, VMS has no equivalent function, so porting Unix programs 1 :that are structured to rely on this behaviour...   J   Most programmers don't seem to really appreciate fully what fork() does I   and what it really means in terms of the address space and the I/O, and J   most use it as a familiar way to start a process -- the majority of whatI   fork() actually provides is immediately discarded, and at some expense. H   For most of these programs, vfork() works just fine -- the differencesH   in I/O and memory management (the lack of copy-on-write support withinH   OpenVMS memory management, for instance) make a full implementation ofG   fork() rather more involved on OpenVMS -- OpenVMS certainly isn't the A   only operating system lacking copy-on-write support, obviously.     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:32:51 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>; Subject: Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create? - Message-ID: <87wubovjmk.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   3 "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:   E > Are there any advantages to EVA that can't be realized by judicious $ > use of the preceding technologies?   They are new and KEWL...  @ If you don't know or understand you IO load, or are stuck with a7 neanderthal OS disk arch, then they can ease your life.   D They are touted for being easier to `manage space requirments'.  HowB replacing a N way problem with a N+1 way one is simplifing I don't know.   B You get a wonderfull billybox so your storage can be raped without impacting your main hosts :)  @ FC protoco; has all sorts of wonderfull corner cases that have a1 wand of `can't happen' waved over the SEP field.     --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:20:24 -0400+ From: "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com> ; Subject: Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create? 9 Message-ID: <blfgeq$boft0$1@ID-118202.news.uni-berlin.de>   > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message :I : I still haven't even seen an EVA (probably won't unless I can go to the H : bootcamp in November), I've only read about them here in the group and : on-line at hp's website. : H : So far, it all seems to add a lot of questionably necessary complexityG : for very little improvement. Seems to me one can do better laying out J : RAIDsets on HSxes one's self and avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned byC : yourself and other posters. Add to that the fact the HSxes can be E : commanded in batch jobs via HSDSA or HSZPAD$SCSITERM and it seems a  : negative gain. : I : Are there any advantages to EVA that can't be realized by judicious use   : of the preceding technologies? :   b Besides blowing the pants off of anything else the EVA is much easier to manage. You need to spendd time up front doing planning (just like HSxxx environments) but it gets easier as you go along. When_ we moved disks from the CI HSJ50 environment to the EVA our nightly batch runs averaged and 80% F reduction in clock time. The night people thought everything failed :)  c BTW there is a utility called SSSU that lets you access the EVA from the DCL command line. Although Y the SSSU commands are verbose, I have always been able to do anything I need to using it.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:10:04 GMT % From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com> ; Subject: Re: EVA question: How many vdisks should I create? 7 Message-ID: <0OLeb.7075$832.5660@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>   : David J. Dachtera <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3F7A288E.E7067C5C@fsi.net...  > jlsue wrote:
 > > [snip]4 > > One of the biggest benefits of EVA, imho, [snip] > > ? > > The impact depends on each specific environment, of course.  > I > I still haven't even seen an EVA (probably won't unless I can go to the H > bootcamp in November), I've only read about them here in the group and > on-line at hp's website. > H > So far, it all seems to add a lot of questionably necessary complexityG > for very little improvement. Seems to me one can do better laying out J > RAIDsets on HSxes one's self and avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned byC > yourself and other posters. Add to that the fact the HSxes can be E > commanded in batch jobs via HSDSA or HSZPAD$SCSITERM and it seems a  > negative gain. > I > Are there any advantages to EVA that can't be realized by judicious use   > of the preceding technologies?  I I would say yes...   I can present more than 30 storagesets/LUNS from the H EVA unit.  I do not have to worry about how many systems (Connections) IL have connected to the EVA.  The smallest LUN is not married to spindle size,I and I can make several LUNS from the space of one spindle if I so desire. I OR, I can make that 2TB LUN if I really need to.  I seem to remember that , the HSG only allowed for a 1TB max LUN size.  K We are using the EVA for Enterprise backups/snapshot capability.  Therefore J we are not worrying about "HOT spindles", and making multiple disk groups.K It gets dumped to every night by multiple clusters,  The static backup data K is then Snapped,  the SNAP is presented to the BACKUP cluster that sends it  to tape.  L When we get our next EVA, it will be interesting to see exactly how we setup that one for production. >  > -- > David J. Dachtera  > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/ > * > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:09:29 -0700' From: David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu> I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) 8 Message-ID: <20031001100929.58f66406.mathog@caltech.edu>   On 30 Sep 2003 21:27:55 GMT = gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) wrote:     L > But if you cheat billing systems, I'm sure there will be a lot more effortO > everywhere to punish you which in turn makes it more likely that you try such  > attempts.   O Which brings us back to the megamailserver concept.  Imagine that ICANN blesses L several top level mail services.  These charge epostage (probably somebody'sH trademark, sorry) to accept email.  Something other than SMTP is used toM deliver mail to these machines, but they send it out to its final destination L via SMTP.  (Or you could read it there too, and just be done with SMTP once J and for all.)  On your local server you allow incoming SMTP mail only fromI your local machines and these megaservers.  The only way you're going to   receive spam then is:   ) 1.  somebody spends a fortune to send it. 6 2.  somebody hacks one of your trusted local machines.$ 3.  somebody spoofs the megaservers.< 4.  somebody hacks the megaserver (perhaps an "inside job").  R But if the megaservers were in place most ISP routers would block SMTP connectionsK other than from the megaservers in, and in particular, would block all SMTP J out.  So how is a spammer going to send the spoofed mail?  And if they didG find a way they would stick out like a sore thumb, because, unlike now, K where there's smtp traffic all over the place, there would normally only be ! SMTP traffic from a few machines.   H And how do you deal with newsgroups?  Well, presumably the same way you M deal with newsletters, with a form of bulk mailing rate.  The obvious problem J there is that it does provide an opportunity for spammers to get back intoQ the act, by joining a list, sending out a few quick spams, and then disappearing. O One might need to put down a deposit to join a list.  (Personally I prefer news M servers to mail servers since I generally do not want to receive all messages  in my mailbox.)   Q The basic problem is that there is a fundamental flaw in current internet design  Q and it's most evident with mail.  Since there's no charge to use up resources you M end up with a "tragedy of the commons" type problem, here manifested as SPAM. M I think you could probably argue that huge graphics and sound heavy web pages L are in pretty much the same category, using up much more bandwidth than theyC are worth.  Certainly more than anybody would be likely to pay for.    Regards,   David Mathog mathog@caltech.edu> Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 16:36:17 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: <blevq1$i6q$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>  W In article <vnlo22duetfpe1@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes: J >Come on, do the math!  $0.01 is cheap for a persons normal e-mail but, itJ >would kill Info-VAX.  If there are 10,000 subscribers, who's going to pay0 >the $100.00 every time someone posts a message?  K This is a problem specific to newsgroups mirrored as mailing lists and with L most "subscribers" using newsreaders and a small amount using e-mail. A listL with 10,000 subscribers could receive 10,000 $ a month from every subscriberO (or better 12 $ per year and subscriber) which would be pretty sufficient. With N a fee of 0.01 $ this would equal to 33,333 messages per day. I will reduce the subscription price...   E The problem is when there are only 500 e-mail subscribers but 100,000 K contributors in the newsgroup. These poor 500 people will have to pay a bit N more in order to receive the full newsgroup traffic or switch to newsgroups orF will find a news-to-mail gateway with direct or private links to them.   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: 1 Oct 2003 16:38:01 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: <blevt9$i6q$2@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>  P In article <3F7AF44B.3090705@rdrop.com>, Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> writes:G >Money, money, money. Tell me, people, who gets to keep all this money?   O The guys that produce the accounting mechanisms ;-) Or some government if it is  a tax.   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: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:52:57 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <3F7B2289.6F6635B6@istop.com>    Christoph Gartmann wrote: M > replies to mailing lists. The one or two messages that I post per day would # > cost me 0.01 $ or so. No problem.   K If you have your own SMTP server, it isn't just the 2 messages you send per J day, but also the 2 you receive per day. And you'll need the whole billingI infrastructure to handle this, and in countries where there is a GST/VAT, I you'll need to figure out if the tax applies (GST/VAT applies to domestic  sales, not to exports).    ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:11:04 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <blf8s8$9ma$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   V In article <3F7A6054.4631F2A5@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: >David Froble wrote:Q >> The problem with filters at the receiving end is that the transfer takes place + >> before you make any filtering decisions.  > I >Prior to the DATA phase when content is transfered, the SMTP negitiation  >provides the received with:S >1- authoritative address of the sender's IP address (from the receiver's IP stack) A >2- a host/domain name from the HELO command. (non authoritative) C >3- a return path email address from MAIL FROM: (non authoritative) I >4- destination emails from RCPT TO: (only those destined for this host).  > L >At the each RCPT TO:, the receiver has the option to refuse it and issue an) >error message. If the error is signaled. L >When the sender issues the DATA command, the receiver can issue a "sorry, I% >don't want it" and close connection.  > I >You cannot scan the contents for a virus without receiving that content.  >   K At least one MTA allows you to scan the data as it is coming in - I believe O it's Exim - and to reject it with a 5xx message. Most though accept the message  and then do the virus scanning.          N >You want the sender to give you a summary of the attachement ? He'll give youK >a nice summary you are happy with, and when the recipient gives you the go J >ahead, you then send contents which totally differ and contain the virus. >   
 Precisely.    O >One totally different approach would be to build a database of authorized SMTP N >servers. Anyone with a fixed IP address could register, with legitimate name,N >address etc. That person would then be held responsible for all emails coming >from that IP address. > M >If that IP address starts to send spam or viruses, you then have an easy way L >to contact the person/organbisation to get an explanation. If there are too= >many complaints, that IP address is flagged in the database.  > O >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. > L >The SMTP protocol itself wouldn't need to change. Just SMTP server softwareF >which would add an RBL like check very early in the SMTP negotiation.    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:38:21 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <blfafd$acd$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   o In article <bldva7$4pb$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) writes: K >In article <bld6s7$ifu$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk writes: R >>>Now to the case where delivery of a mail is unsuccessfull: it doesn't matter ifR >>>it counts as a message. The amount of these cases is neglectable to the overallR >>>number of successfully delivered messages. On the other hand, it is technicallyM >>>possible to do an exact billing, but I think it is not worth the overhead.  >>> N >>As a percentage of successfully delivered mail messages that maybe so but toM >>the user who sent out one mail message and is billed for a thousand it is a  >>different matter.  > P >The question is whether such scenarios will really exist. As soon as there is aI >fee even for unsuccessfull connection attempts those will be immediately I >reduced to reasonable numbers. An average user will send perhaps a dozen I >messages per day. I would assume that almost all of them will go through N >immediately. From time to time there is one that has to bee resent every fourI >hours during three days or so. So the poor users will have to pay for 18 O >additionale messages. Remember, I suggest a SMALL fee, 0.05 $ or even lower. A 3 >fee that will only be high in case of huge counts.  > N My mailhubs resend messages once per hour for upto 12 days. The RFCs limit you! to retrying once every half hour.     O >>You seem to be assuming that mail and the internet are a hierachical network. L >>They aren't. SMTP is routed over a virtual connection directly between theQ >>sender and recipient systems (Organisations may force this to also pass through @ >>intermediate systems ie their central mailhubs if they wish).  > I >I am well aware of that. But I still don't see any contradiction with my O >approach. Direct connections between small ISPs, links between companies, they O >all won't be affected and be free. As a government I would only impose the fee J >on the few largest network companies, those that provide the big lines orJ >links. What these companies then will do is up to them. There are severalL >possibilities but I am sure that the billing will go along all the channelsM >until they reach single customers in various places of the world. It is very N >likely that contracts will look pretty the same as they do nowadays, with oneL >exception: the fixed or traffic bound fee will increase if originating mailN >messages will exceed a certain number. This number will vary from contract toN >contract and will usually not be exceeded unless something "strange" is goingO >on, e.g. a spammer starts working at your site or you suffer from a virus like M >SWEN, etc. . But you will double your effort to prevent such cases (it costs - >money!) or take measures to stop such cases.  >   A I think you are misunderstanding when I say it's not hierachical. O As I understand it your system requires monitoring by the "top level" companies  for packets containing     <CR>.<CR> directed to port 25     I This won't work because ALL packets in a virtual connection will not pass H through one route across the internet. The top level comapany - call it P international net company A - sees this packet. If you looked through it's logs E you might easily find that it has never seen any of the other packets N associated with this virtual connection. All the other packets could have goneL through international net company B. This final packet has instead gone thisM route because in the last second the routers have dynamically determined that  that is the better route.   L International net company A has no context for this packet. Only the sendingM and receiving systems have full knowledge of the current state of the virtual  connection.   O A million packets like this one could be injected into the network at any point M and would dutifully make their way to the destination system. The destination G system would then reject them because it hadn't set up any such virtual H connection - hell it might not even be running a mail server on port 25.  M International net company A does not have enough information from the packets M passing through it to charge anybody for mail usage. It's only job is to pass O on packets. For that job it doesn't care that it is oblivious to the context of I those packets. To charge those directly connected to it for the volume of J traffic they pass through it doesn't require it to know the context of theL packets. To charge for any services provided by those packets it needs to beM aware of the full context. It cannot be aware of that context hence it cannot  charge.   
 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: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:54:38 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <blfbdu$acd$2@news.mdx.ac.uk>   b In article <20031001100929.58f66406.mathog@caltech.edu>, David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu> writes: >On 30 Sep 2003 21:27:55 GMT> >gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) wrote: >  > M >> But if you cheat billing systems, I'm sure there will be a lot more effort P >> everywhere to punish you which in turn makes it more likely that you try such >> attempts. > P >Which brings us back to the megamailserver concept.  Imagine that ICANN blessesM >several top level mail services.  These charge epostage (probably somebody's I >trademark, sorry) to accept email.  Something other than SMTP is used to N >deliver mail to these machines, but they send it out to its final destinationM >via SMTP.  (Or you could read it there too, and just be done with SMTP once  K >and for all.)  On your local server you allow incoming SMTP mail only from J >your local machines and these megaservers.  The only way you're going to  >receive spam then is: >   * >1.  somebody spends a fortune to send it.    N Somebody gets a virus writing kit and sends out a virus whose payload is spam.G Note this won't be a mail virus it will spread using methods other than 3 mail - it will just use mail to send out it's spam.   4 All those infected spend a fortune to send the spam.  ' Two possible outcomes come out of that      " 1) Everybody stops using billyware   or  K 2) Everybody refuses to pay the charge and the megamailserver concept dies.     
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University        7 >2.  somebody hacks one of your trusted local machines. % >3.  somebody spoofs the megaservers. = >4.  somebody hacks the megaserver (perhaps an "inside job").  > S >But if the megaservers were in place most ISP routers would block SMTP connections L >other than from the megaservers in, and in particular, would block all SMTPK >out.  So how is a spammer going to send the spoofed mail?  And if they did H >find a way they would stick out like a sore thumb, because, unlike now,L >where there's smtp traffic all over the place, there would normally only be" >SMTP traffic from a few machines. > I >And how do you deal with newsgroups?  Well, presumably the same way you  N >deal with newsletters, with a form of bulk mailing rate.  The obvious problemK >there is that it does provide an opportunity for spammers to get back into R >the act, by joining a list, sending out a few quick spams, and then disappearing.P >One might need to put down a deposit to join a list.  (Personally I prefer newsN >servers to mail servers since I generally do not want to receive all messages >in my mailbox.) > R >The basic problem is that there is a fundamental flaw in current internet design R >and it's most evident with mail.  Since there's no charge to use up resources youN >end up with a "tragedy of the commons" type problem, here manifested as SPAM.N >I think you could probably argue that huge graphics and sound heavy web pagesM >are in pretty much the same category, using up much more bandwidth than they D >are worth.  Certainly more than anybody would be likely to pay for. > 	 >Regards,  > 
 >David Mathog  >mathog@caltech.edu ? >Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:19:15 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <3F7B44C9.9A9557D1@istop.com>   J If you start charging for mail that goes through port 25, then people will6 develop an alternative to mail, using some other port.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 18:31 CDT' From: carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) , Message-ID: <1OCT200318311504@gerg.tamu.edu>  ) Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> writes... G }Money, money, money. Tell me, people, who gets to keep all this money?  }   < As long as I get to tell you who gets to keep all the money," the answer is easy: send it to me.  	 ---  Carl    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:00:06 GMT ' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) + Message-ID: <3F7B7923.6975E569@pacbell.net>    Dean Woodward wrote: > H > Money, money, money. Tell me, people, who gets to keep all this money?  G In the potocol I'm proposing here, the answer is the end user recipient F and some for the user's ESP. Further, there isn't necessarily all thatB much. Most people would allow mail from friends and assocciates toD bypass Email charges and only charge for mail from unknown users. InB addition, depending on the implementation, between the ESP and theG recipient, they could credit back a fee if it was charged to a new usere  they wanted to communicate with.  E It also appears from comments that I need to describe the interactioniD between the ESP and the end recipient. While this in not part of theH protocol I'm proposing, it seems the lack of implementation examples has led to some misunderstandings.   -- r   Have VMS, Will Travele Wire paladin, San Franciscor   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:11:31 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)p) Message-ID: <3F7B7B29.58ADAD3C@istop.com>s   Don Sykes wrote:I > In the potocol I'm proposing here, the answer is the end user recipient  > and some for the user's ESP.    J The next get rick scam: subscribe to as many  mailing lists as you can and then get tons of money.e  K As a result of such a policy, do you think HP would agree to send emails to M notify of new patches to anyone but those who have paid expensive contracts ?aF Multiply this for every lartge corporation that has seen the values of communicating to its users.I   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:45:01 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr"); Subject: How can I tell my Tomcat 2.1 upgrade did anything? 6 Message-ID: <00A26BDC.F78E7675@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  
 OpenVMS 7.3-1w CSWS 1.3
 Tomcat 2.1  G Okay, so I backed up my [.jakarta] tree, then followed the installationnL instructions in the release notes and used @apache$jakarta to remove mod_jk22 from my CSWS config, did PRODUCT REMOVE CSWS_JAVA,K left my ANT and WEBAPP directories intact and did PRODUCT INSTALL CSWS_JAVA H (from a directory that only had 2.1 in it), then used apache$jakarta to  add mod_jk2 back in.  N Tomcat started, CSWS started, everything seems good - but I can't tell whetherF I actually have a new Tomcat here.  File dates on .jars all seem to beN 11-jun-2002; the examples page says Tomcat 4.0.4 while the product is supposedN to be 4.1.  (But this may just be a result of the examples jsp not having been edited.)  K Do I really have Tomcat 4.1?  PRODUCT SHOW HISTORY is sure I have CSWS_JAVA  2.1.  How can I tell?e   Thanks,    -- Alan! --  O ===============================================================================p0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056gM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025yO ===============================================================================i   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:42:55 -0400b& From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com> Subject: Re: How to uninstall?8 Message-ID: <9a4mnvk5ka62u4esisr32dfs379a91vma1@4ax.com>  M On 29 Sep 2003 11:27:34 -0500, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:-  b >In article <palgnv033qu06iobqeu1mh6j3u1s8ldeo7@4ax.com>, David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com> writes:E >> On 26 Sep 2003 18:42 CDT, carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) wrote:m >>  I >>>Note that VMSINSTAL does create an xxx.VMI_DATA file in the SYS$UPDATEC) >>>directory which tells you what it did.l >>>b >>>This info could be helpfull.p >> iO >> Carl, note that this is an Alpha-only feature of VMSINSTAL, and the original ) >> poster is asking about a VAX system...  > ? >Did the original poster also specify an older version of VMS ?, >u> >VMI_DATA is referenced in VMSINSTAL on VAX/VMS V7.3, which is >the current release.o  I Well, SEARCHing SYS$UPDATE:VMSINSTAL.COM for VMI_DATA I agree that "it is-I referenced" in VAX V7.3 (which I, too, am running). However, while I have(P installed many VMSINSTAL kits I have no .VMI_DATA files on my VAX node, but lots: of them on my Alpha node -- I did check before posting ;<)   $ dir sys$update:*.vmi*n! %DIRECT-W-NOFILES, no files foundr  / Do you get them on your VAX V7.3 system, Larry?sI -------------------------------------------------------------------------rI David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot comlI Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only)eI -------------------------------------------------------------------------j   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 13:13:34 -0500.- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)t Subject: Re: How to uninstall?3 Message-ID: <t0ySTjBL0OIP@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  a In article <9a4mnvk5ka62u4esisr32dfs379a91vma1@4ax.com>, David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com> writes:uO > On 29 Sep 2003 11:27:34 -0500, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:s > c >>In article <palgnv033qu06iobqeu1mh6j3u1s8ldeo7@4ax.com>, David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com> writes:iF >>> On 26 Sep 2003 18:42 CDT, carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) wrote: >>> J >>>>Note that VMSINSTAL does create an xxx.VMI_DATA file in the SYS$UPDATE* >>>>directory which tells you what it did. >>>>  >>>>This info could be helpfull. >>> P >>> Carl, note that this is an Alpha-only feature of VMSINSTAL, and the original* >>> poster is asking about a VAX system... >>@ >>Did the original poster also specify an older version of VMS ? >>? >>VMI_DATA is referenced in VMSINSTAL on VAX/VMS V7.3, which iss >>the current release. > K > Well, SEARCHing SYS$UPDATE:VMSINSTAL.COM for VMI_DATA I agree that "it isaK > referenced" in VAX V7.3 (which I, too, am running). However, while I haveER > installed many VMSINSTAL kits I have no .VMI_DATA files on my VAX node, but lots< > of them on my Alpha node -- I did check before posting ;<) >  > $ dir sys$update:*.vmi* # > %DIRECT-W-NOFILES, no files foundd > 1 > Do you get them on your VAX V7.3 system, Larry?g  B I don't think I have done any VMSINSTAL installations on VAX since upgrading to VMS V7.3.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 15:42:30 -0700 1 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)e@ Subject: Re: HP to Linux users: "Go ahead.  I've got your back."= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0310011442.73015ba5@posting.google.com>b   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bleq95$evj$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...-J > So far no one has shown that Sun is assisting SCO directly or indirectly > in its current actions  E I'd call a financial contribution from Sun to SCO to the tune of $6.6 F million, or 12% of SCO's total revenues, over the past 9 months, as atD least "indirectly" helping SCO in its current actions.  Others might  well call it "directly" helping.   http://groups.google.com/groups?q=more+on+sun+and+sco+group:comp.os.vms&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.os.vms&selm=cf15391e.0309221021.6deaf10%40posting.google.com&rnum=1n   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:26:53 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>n6 Subject: Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?H Message-ID: <1UFeb.62509$3r1.20389@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  I Forgot to include this little snippet from the site mentioned in the post L above. Posted under "Important Announcement" in the middle of the home page:    5 "RAV Direct Sales have been ceased (Date: 2003-08-29)   D Due to the aquisition of RAV's IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) byG Microsoft Corp., GeCAD Software SRL is currently engaged in a strategicfK reorganisation of their operations, involving the scaling down and eventual 2 discontinuance of the anti-virus related business.  G As part of this process starting with 3rd of September 2003, the directn5 sales (including the e-store) have been closed down."i   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:24:32 -0700 + From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com>o6 Subject: Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?' Message-ID: <3F7B3800.6050708@MMaz.com>    John Smith wrote:n  J >Forgot to include this little snippet from the site mentioned in the postM >above. Posted under "Important Announcement" in the middle of the home page:l >w > 6 >"RAV Direct Sales have been ceased (Date: 2003-08-29) >dE >Due to the aquisition of RAV's IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) byaH >Microsoft Corp., GeCAD Software SRL is currently engaged in a strategicL >reorganisation of their operations, involving the scaling down and eventual3 >discontinuance of the anti-virus related business.a >eH >As part of this process starting with 3rd of September 2003, the direct6 >sales (including the e-store) have been closed down." >  e >oK It would seem that the Borg have restarted their siege on Sector 0,0,1.... e    F We actually use a competitors product from TrendMicro for our gateway G HTTP, FTP, and SMTP content scanning and filtering that runs on Linux,  G but this does have to cause IT folks to pause when selecting a company -A for software or services.  How many IT people selected RAV as an  A alternative product to a Windoze solution because of their Linux  - support, which is why we selected TrendMicro?0    I How much of this is MS wanting the technology vs. the customer base just c' for assimilating from Linux toWindoze? l    ? How will these type of on-going acquisitions impact efforts by dH businesses who want to avoid MS, their licensing, and to a large extent # their products as much as possible?u    E If there was ever a compelling argument for OpenSource and the value  G that it brings to the table, this would be it; MS can't own or control e it (Not that SCO isn't trying).      Barryi     -- h  > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                        t   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:31:48 -0400s* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>6 Subject: Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?) Message-ID: <3F7B47B8.6C922163@istop.com>0   "Barry Treahy, Jr." wrote:J > How much of this is MS wanting the technology vs. the customer base just( > for assimilating from Linux toWindoze?  H The way I saw it: the fewer anti virsu products exist on Linux, the moreF viruses would succesfully cause problems for Linux shops, and the moreT negative pulicity Linux would get, reducing Microsoft's monopoly on attacks/viruses.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:59:57 -0700a+ From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com>e6 Subject: Re: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?' Message-ID: <3F7B6A7D.2080301@MMaz.com>a   JF Mezei wrote:E   >"Barry Treahy, Jr." wrote:  >    > J >>How much of this is MS wanting the technology vs. the customer base just( >>for assimilating from Linux toWindoze? >>     >> > I >The way I saw it: the fewer anti virsu products exist on Linux, the morenG >viruses would succesfully cause problems for Linux shops, and the moreeU >negative pulicity Linux would get, reducing Microsoft's monopoly on attacks/viruses.a >    >t
 Good point...b   Barrym   -- n  > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                        t   ------------------------------   Date: 1 OCT 2003 18:23:28 GMTo+ From: Dave Greenwood <greenwoodde@ornl.gov>k. Subject: Re: ITRC Download site - some answers1 Message-ID: <1OCT03.18232857@feda01.fed.ornl.gov>v  J In a previous article, "george pagliarulo" <georgepag@adelphia.net> wrote: > Hi,. >  nK >     I work with the VMS ECO release process.  Customer messages have goneUN > 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 benN > available, what doesn't work etc.  Hopefully this will clear some things up.  0 Let me express my appreciation for your posting.   > Patch Digestsw > --------------  I Is it possible to get notification on a kit-by-kit basis rather than in aiB digest?  I get individual notifications for VMS patches and digestH notifications for T64 patches.  I find it infinitely easier to deal withI the individual notifications compared to the digests.  For instance, it'siG nearly impossible to figure out which T64 messages have been supersededb and therefore can be deleted.   N > Digests are the way you get notified of new kits.   You need to register forJ > them but registration is open and does *NOT* require a contact number as/ > someone alluded to (see contract note below).mN > There is a known problem with the digests in that they pick up all or almostK > all the ECO's that are released rather than just the ECO's released since N > the last digest was issued (weekly).  The problem is fixed but unfortunatelyM > the fix can't be implemented until there is a release of the ITRC software. N > That will happen in October.  When it does you should not see more than 5 toL > 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.  J If I can't get individual notifications, I'd rather get a digest that saysH "no patches were released this week", rather than no digest.  That way IJ know the notification system is still alive and that I'm still registered.E (Remember when the current system disappeared a couple of years ago?)i   [snip]   Dave --------------9 Dave Greenwood                Email: Greenwoodde@ORNL.GOV H Oak Ridge National Lab        %STD-W-DISCLAIMER, I only speak for myself   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:00:27 -0400+ From: "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com>t. Subject: Re: ITRC Download site - some answers9 Message-ID: <blff9g$bitfp$1@ID-118202.news.uni-berlin.de>o  b "Peter Weaver" <WeaverConsultingServices@sympatico.ca> wrote in message : george pagliarulo wrote: : >...I : > probably a lot less most of the time.  If no ECO's have been released-I : > for the week, no digest will be issued. Someone mentioned that weekly  : >... :g@ : I would feel a lot better getting an e-mail that said "Nothing@ : this week" rather than having to think "Was there nothing this@ : week, or did something important get lost in that SWEN flood?" :n  ` I agree. Positive confirmation is always better than assuming that not receiving something means" that there was nothing to be sent.   Martye   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 15:45:41 -0700 & From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan). Subject: Re: ITRC Download site - some answers= Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0310011445.3d6f83e9@posting.google.com>g  d Dave Greenwood <greenwoodde@ornl.gov> wrote in message news:<1OCT03.18232857@feda01.fed.ornl.gov>... > K > Is it possible to get notification on a kit-by-kit basis rather than in aPD > digest?  I get individual notifications for VMS patches and digestJ > notifications for T64 patches.  I find it infinitely easier to deal withK > the individual notifications compared to the digests.  For instance, it'seI > nearly impossible to figure out which T64 messages have been supersedede > and therefore can be deleted.c >   D I will add my express hopes for this as well.  My current cataloging@ system for patch info is based on the subjects of the individualE messages I've been getting for a number of years.  It is _far_ easiero? to deal with individual messages than with what are effectivelyu> 'random mini-collections' that I'd have to strip apart anyway.    L > If I can't get individual notifications, I'd rather get a digest that saysJ > "no patches were released this week", rather than no digest.  That way IL > know the notification system is still alive and that I'm still registered.G > (Remember when the current system disappeared a couple of years ago?)o >   ? Ditto.  With as many impediments to reliable email as have beendF happening lately getting the ITRC equivalent of a keepalive would be a nice thing.u   Rich Jordanp CCSa   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:28:08 -0400.& From: Joe Hodge <jhodge@biglizard.net> Subject: Joining Encompass8 Message-ID: <s7amnvsthm49ces5u1bn6sda6fq8veplae@4ax.com>  @ I am wondering how long it takes to join Encompass (DECUS) as an@ associate member?  I filled out the online form and recieved theC confirmation mail on September 4th, and have not heard back.  AfteroE what I thought was a decent wait, I repeated the process on SeptemberbF 26th, and still have heard nothing.  If I go to the site and key in myB email address to look up my password, the site returns a not found@ error which leads me to believe that my application has not been
 processed.  @ Fundamentally, all I want is a DECUS number for the VMS hobbyistD program so that I can get licenses to go with my new (to me) AS1200.  
 My questions:6% Is a wait of multiple weeks normal?  p1 Is there any other way to get a Hobbyist License?s   Thanks,r Joe:   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:03:39 GMT-& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid> Subject: Re: Nice touch, AMD2 Message-ID: <%FEeb.6103$eX1.1879@news.cpqcorp.net>  P Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: > Rick Jones wrote:b  E >> BTW, your mention of 32-bit 2.5 and 2.6 and AIX kernels supportingsF >> > 4GB of RAM made me curious about "history" - if you could send me3 >> some URLs discussing that I would appreciate it.d    A > Well you have an answer from the coal face so to speak, someonee5 > actually using 2.5.1/2.6 with more than 4GB of RAM.1  E Thank you.  I'll be mindful of the coal dust - dust being a hazard ofe any historical research :)  
 rick jones --  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...r   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:14:18 GMTl# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>e6 Subject: OT: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?H Message-ID: <eIFeb.62435$3r1.13888@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  2 itmanagement.earthweb.com/secu/article.php/3086051        ) Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?  By Sharon Gaudin   October 1, 2003     E Corporate networks have been hammered in recent months with a slew of-C viruses and worms, nearly all of them focused on vulnerabilities innH Microsoft Corp.'s software. IT managers running Linux may be breathing aJ sigh of relief that they're not getting hit, but are they really that much safer?  B The answer is, yes and no. Or maybe the answer really is, for now.  H Religious evangelists on both sides of the Windows vs. Linux aisle wouldG argue to the death that their operating system is inherently safer. Butr what's really going on?   H Each operating system has its own security strengths and weaknesses. ButH it's the flaws that have drawn particular focus. Windows flaws have beenJ cropping up faster than some people can track, forget patch. But Linux hasJ its own troubles with vulnerabilities. They simply don't get as much mediaF attention. And that's because Linux isn't as ubiquitous as Microsoft'sI Windows. Windows flaws get more attention because nearly everyone -- fromdH Fortune 100 security managers to their mothers and neighbors -- needs to know about them.  K And many industry observers say it's Windows ubiquitousness that is gettingm it into trouble.  F ''Virus writers like to make a name for themselves and they do that byL infecting the masses,'' says Steven Sundermeier, a vice president at CentralK Command, an anti-virus company based in Medina, Ohio. ''If you want to have J a well-documented, wide-spread virus, you go after the Microsoft operatingI system. That doesn't mean that Linux can't be exposed to viruses. It justoD means it's not a real target at this point. But that could change.''  H Sundermeier points out that Central Command has documented more than 200I viruses specifically targeting the Linux operating system. It sounds like@F something until you realize that the company has documented a total ofJ approximately 75,000 viruses. And when you factor out the viruses aimed atJ DOS-based systems and Unix, you have 65,000 to 70,000 viruses specifically% targeting the Windows side of things.   E And vulnerabilities and viruses have become a critical concern for IT L managers. Symantec Corp., an anti-virus and security company, recently notedK that the number of reported software bugs skyrocketed 81.5% last year. ThatcI means the amount of time and attention managers have to focus on patchingMH bugs and preparing to fend off malicious code has multiplied at the same rate.   L All too often, patches aren't applied because the manager wasn't fast enoughJ on his feet, other projects got in the way, that particular patch just gotJ lost in the flood of patch notices or simply because the IT manager didn'tK have enough time. No matter the reason, when patches aren't applied, it cani have devastating effects.t  L For example, despite the fact that Microsoft had sent out alerts in July forI a vulnerability in its Remote Procedure Call (RPC), the Blaster worm that L exploited the flaw still caught millions of people unprepared in August. AndE Sobig-F, which so far is the latest variant in the Sobig worm family,mL wreaked millions of dollars worth of havoc on networks around the world. TheH Sobig worm has been around for months, but companies are still being hit& because they're not patched and ready.  @ All of this virus havoc is being unleashed on Microsoft systems.       More Overt Attacks on LinuxgH But as Linux grows in popularity, that may not remain the case. The moreF Linux systems out there, the bigger and better the target they create.   That may already be happening.  E Linux was the most-attacked online server operating system in August,nK according to a report from mi2g, a digital risk assessment company based insK London. In August, 67% of all overt digital attacks targeted Linux. Windows  received 23.2% of the attacks.  F But despite Linux being the target of the majority of overt, or known,G digital attacks, virus attacks on Windows caused much greater financial G damage. Thanks to the havoc that Sobig-F and the Blaster worms wreaked, I August reportedly has gone down as the worst month in digital history for-F virus attacks. Last month, viruses, along with overt and covert hackerJ attacks, caused $32.8 billion in economic damages, according to mi2g. Mi2gD also notes that the Sobig virus alone accounted for $29.7 billion of economic damages worldwide.b  J ''Linux isn't more or less secure than Microsoft, in the respect that it'sG certainly possible to create viruses and worms that target Linux and todI initiate intrusion attacks against Linux,'' says Chris Belthoff, a senioruH analyst at Sophos, Inc., an anti-virus company based in Lynnfield, Mass.G ''If there is a market shift and more Linux is out there, it's almost aeJ certainty that you'll have more malicious code targeting that platform. It- simply would meet the virus writers' needs.''   H Dan Woolley, a vice president at Computer Associates International Inc.,L says he expects to start seeing virus writers branching out when it comes to> targets. And that's not good news for companies running Linux.  L ''I think we're going to see many more variances in attack scenarios. ThingsD are going to change,'' says Woolley. ''I think Linux has been prettyG protected. Linux has been the platform for the really technically savvy K guys. They all go to conferences together, break bread, share a beer. VirusrE writers are less apt to go after them. Drinking buddies don't take ondI drinking buddies. It's a shared respect. It's much more fun to target theo evil empire.''  J But as Linux goes more and more corporate, Woolley thinks all bets will be off.  B And Robert Richardson, editorial director of the Computer SecurityJ Institute, says IT managers who switch to Linux to avoid the virus attacks$ on Windows may be in for a surprise.  J ''I think they'll benefit from the relative obscurity of Linux for a whileL and they'll suffer fewer virus attacks,'' says Richardson. ''They'll also beL making some trade offs in terms of availability of software. And security is about those tradeoffs.  F ''Is Linux inherently safer than windows?'' asks Richardson. ''No, notH inherently. A simpler design typically means fewer vulnerabilities but I* wouldn't go so far as to say it's safer.''   ---------------   H Interestingly, a few months ago Microsoft bought-out an Eastern-EuropeanH company which was the developer/vendor of the one of the most popular AV) software for Linux.  www.ravantivirus.come   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:07:27 -0400h* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>: Subject: Re: OT: Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?) Message-ID: <3F7B4205.ED46917C@istop.com>y   John Smith quoted an article:nJ > Religious evangelists on both sides of the Windows vs. Linux aisle wouldF > argue to the death that their operating system is inherently safer.   L I find it very hard to believe that any Window weenie would claim that theirL OS is more secure. Even their God, Mr Gates admitted Windows needed a lot of/ work to bring it to acceptable security levels.   L > a well-documented, wide-spread virus, you go after the Microsoft operatingK > system. That doesn't mean that Linux can't be exposed to viruses. It justsF > means it's not a real target at this point. But that could change.''  M If you send an executable to a linux platform, what are the odds that it willtL actually be able to execute on Linux (consider the number of platforms LinuxK runs on as a starter, and wheter there is any Linux email software that cane+ execute them from within the email client).   K Does Linux, by default, provide the users with privileges to deposit/changeeK system files, such as adding a new process that can start behind the scenesuF during system boot ? Do most linux users create their own unprivileged5 account, or do they give themselves root privileges ?e  J > Sundermeier points out that Central Command has documented more than 200= > viruses specifically targeting the Linux operating system. e  G I'd be very interested in finding out what tactics Linux viruses use to " 1-install themselves, 2-propagate.  L > But as Linux goes more and more corporate, Woolley thinks all bets will be > off.  L If Linux is well designed, you won't have the gaping holes needed to installG and propagate viruses. And people will learn that less "fancy" software-K without bells and whistles is actually just as good to get the job done and M has the bonus that because it doesn't leave doors opened to vurises, you saveg a tremendous amount of time.  H > ''Is Linux inherently safer than windows?'' asks Richardson. ''No, notJ > inherently. A simpler design typically means fewer vulnerabilities but I, > wouldn't go so far as to say it's safer.''  L Does Linux come with all gaping holes installed/preconfigured ? If microsoftK were to properly configure the defaults in its OS and software, it would befL the target of far fewer easy/succesful attacks because there wouldn't be the9 widespread number of machines that are easily infectable.   L But by closing the hols in the default means that out of the box, Windows isJ less attractive from a marketing point of view. MS wants all its bells and6 whistles to work the first time you boot your machine.  K Also, with linux, there is no attempt to hide the OS from the user, or hiden stuff behind a gui..   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:27:18 GMT+9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>e@ Subject: Re: Preserving decwindows session through disconnection2 Message-ID: <GMGeb.6120$At2.1831@news.cpqcorp.net>   VNC?  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messagea# news:3F6DE9EA.C9AD1A1D@istop.com...1K > Lets say I have a decwindows (vax vms) session established to a X windows  server/display.o >hL > If I turn off the X windows display (or quit the x emulation software), my VMSnK > session is killed and I must login again and reopen, place etc windows to  geti > to where I was before. >mK > Is there a way to preserve an x windows session such that if the X serverc goesA > away, when it comes back, I could get all the previously openedc= > applications/windows to redisplay the exact way they were ?i   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:00:39 GMTS' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>dM Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?i+ Message-ID: <3F7B8754.3623EC0F@pacbell.net>h   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:l > W > In article <3F79CE46.5E40D800@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:i > >  > >e" > >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >>O > >> In article <blag7c$kfg$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:u[ > >> >In article <3F789087.7B990DE0@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:n > >> >>e > >> >>u& > >> >>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >> >>>] > >> >>> In article <3F74CF7F.9D265CA@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: 
 > >> >>> >
 > >> >>> >) > >> >>> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:n > >> >>> >>ec > >> >>> >> In article <vn5s22g2nrds0e@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:38 > >> >>> >> ><david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message0 > >> >>> >> >news:bkuhsq$dk3$1@news.mdx.ac.uk...D > >> >>> >> >> In article <3F71D664.D92AAC37@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes, > >> >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: > >> >>> >> >> >/ > >> >>> >> >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:a > >> >>> >> >> >>tG > >> >>> >> >> >> In article <3F70934A.3C36DD45@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes , > >> >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: > >> >>> >> >> >> >  > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>>H > >> Ok I've now read the latest version of your protocol. Much clearer.S > >> The only question now is exactly what problem this new protocol is supposed toi > >> solve ? > >aI > >It's supposed to stop spam by requiring all the meta data up front andn> > >allow end receivers to charge a fee for questionable email. > >i > >>N > >> Your protocol deals only with transactions between organisation's central. > >> mailhubs (my parties 2 and 3 from above).8 > >> This is not where problems of identification occur. > > J > >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.a > >SP > Thats what I'm trying to say. This is NO different from the current protocols. >  > >>Q > >> Using current protocols a central mailhub knows the ip address of any systempK > >> talking directly to it and can do a reverse domain lookup. Your seconduE > >> connection from the receiver to the sender adds nothing to this.o > >uD > >Yes it does, because it's up to the receiving ESP to initiate theI > >request. If the meta data doesn't pass muster, the receiver leaves thecB > >sender holding the bag: tying up their resources instead of the > >receiver's. > >M > J > What resources ? The spammer system is no longer involved at this point.  F The spammer's ESP is still involved, because he has to keep the unsentH email somewhere and check all inbound phase 2 requests against a list of emails ready to send.i  Q > The sender "central mailhub" may have one port opened for listening - but since0E > it can specify the same port for all connections that's no problem.e > J > Please tell me where the extra control for the receiver from this second% > connection comes from as against :-r > & > sender                      receiver& > ======                      ======== > 2 > Setup connection to         Listening on port 25 > port 25 on receiverh > H >                             Check incoming IP number against blacklistK >                             Send back 5xx response if blacklisted and endy7 >                             connection if blacklisted: > @ >                             Do reverse lookup of sender in DNSN >                             Send back 5xx response and end connection if not3 >                             in DNS or blacklistedI >  > @ > EHLO hostname               Send back supported Message sizes,0 >                             max recipients etc > = > From : <xxxx@domain>        DO lookup of from domain in DNSe= >                             check if exists or on blacklistnA >                             check From address not on blacklistEK >                             If checks fail send back 5xx response and endw) >                             connection.  > 5 > RCPT TO: <yyyy@zzzz>        Check against relaying.n5 >                             Check known local user.eK >                             If checks fail send back 5xx response and ende( >                             connection >  > etc  >  > P > The receiver is in compete control. If it doesn't like something it sends back+ > a 5xx response and closes the connection.e  ? The receiver can set aside accepting an email until a time moreo> convenient to them. They're not required to accept mail at theG convinience of the sender. This allows options that are impossible in aeG one phase protocol, like retrieving large or low priority emails during C slow times and sending a pre-email notification to the user - e.g. mB 	I have a request from smutpeddler@legitdomain.com, do you want toB accept a 2MB avi file? do you want to charge him? If so, how much?> that sort of thing. A one phase protocol requires a continuous3 interaction until the mail is rejected or accepted.    >  > O > >> At the moment there does exist a small possiblity of spoofing however your-= > >> system is exactly as vulnerable as the current standards  > > K > >I don't agree, because in phase 2 the receiver initiates the connection. K > >So unless the spoofer can control the DNS I don't see how they will everA > >get their message delivered..J > >And if they can control the DNS, they can jolly well force all of us to1 > >a smut site when we try to http to Google.com.u > K > Yes as I say a small chance of spoofing which is exactly the same for theS? > current protocol since it can do exactly the same DNS lookup.dO > Since this is at the central mailhub rather than the desktop sender level the P > chances of anyone wanting to spoof this are pretty remote anyway. Any spoofingC > would be done between the desktop system and the central mailhub.   E Give me an example of what you mean. I don't see it. When the desktopjH user goes to retrieve his mail he logs onto a POP or IMAP server, passesG his userid & password and downloads the mails that are waiting for him.n Where would the spoofing occur?a   > N > As to controlling the DNS and redirecting to smut sites - yes it happens allM > the time. Though the preference is usually to redirect to their own version=G > of a companies site so they can gather credit card and other details.N >  > >  > >> - this can be improved L > >> in the future by use of server certificates and SSL/TSL to provide more' > >> trustworthy mutual authentication.  > >>P > >> The problems of identity are to do with tracking within organisations, withJ > >> non-compliant and badly configured mail systems and with open relays.M > >> These are NOT protocol issues.  Nobody should be running an open-relay -s7 > >> there is even an RFC which states this - RFC 2505.n > >eK > >I don't run an open relay and I can't stop the 100's of spams per day or B > >force anyone to pay if I deliver a spam message to an end user. > >t > P > But apart from the fee paying idea which won't work unless you really know whoN > to charge the fee to your protocol doesn't provide anything extra which will > control spammers.y  / Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?c  The fee IS the pertenient point.   > J > >I agree that identity problems WITHIN an organisation are not solved byG > >this, but that' by design. IMO all those problems are implementationcG > >issues, ones, I might add, that are just as likely to cause problemso > >using any protocol. > >e > Q > What I am saying is your protocol is irrelevent. Communications between centraltN > mailhubs are already adequately controlled. It is the injection of spam intoK > the sending central mailhubs and direct sending of mail bypassing central " > mailhubs which need controlling.  5 How can you bypass the receiving ESP? Example please.i  L > Unfortunately even after solving those problems we will still be left withP > open-relays and misconfigured or non-compliant systems. The systems which wereL > being put in place to handle those - blacklists - have been hounded out ofK > existence by court proceedings and latterly by targeted denial of servicee
 > attacks. > L > >> I note in passing that your protocol is actually pretty weak on this :- > >>N > >> "The receiving ESP has no obligation to relay messages outside of its own > >> domain" > >jG > >The point of this statement is to clarify that this protocol doesn'teG > >deal with issues of routing beyond the receiver ESP. If they want toM4 > >route beyond their domain, that's their business. > >3 > 7 > NO system should ever be configured as an open-relay.  >  > >>T > >> The only features of your protocol different from current ESMTP implementations > >> are :-2 > >>M > >> 1) Two separate connections  - As stated above this is pretty pointless.M > >AI > >Not at all pointless as I mentioned. Control of the mail receipt is ine > >the hands of the receiver.> > M > Control in the current protocol is in the hands of the receiver without anyr > need for a second connection.   B Partial control in the current protocol. Full control in a 2 phase	 protocol.e   >  > >eQ > >> 2) The provision of attachment numbers, sizes and mime types up front beforeh" > >>    the actual data is passed.* > >>    I'm not sure of the point of this. > >DF > >The point is to allow the receiver ESP to use this info in decidingJ > >whether to accept this message. Maybe a policy is not to accept msword,G > >due to the infection possibilities. Or maybe an organization doesn'ti > >want avi or other video.  > > + > >>   Virus writers and Microsoft productsn. > >>    either lie or ignore this information. > >3I > >Yes, they can, but if you try to launch an msword attachment as an exenC > >it's not going to work. Mail readers use the MIME info to decide K > >whether, and how, to launch it. So lying isn't going to get you what you  > >want. > >cF > Microsoft products ignore the MIME type they use the file extension.M > This is why most mailhubs have a large - ever growing - list of banned files
 > extensions._  G That's Microsoft's problem. Maybe they'll be more MIME compliant in then1 future if they see it's better for them to do so.S   > ' > >> Mime is also not the only encodingnS > >>    mechanism used in mail messages - eg uuencoded mail, pgp encrypted mail etc Q > >>    Also since this is at the central mailhub level only organisational levele- > >>    checks and blocks can be done anyway.i > > J > >That depends completely on your implementation. For businesses like HP,K > >they probably would use organizational-wide parameters. AOL on the othersK > >hand will defininately not. They will allow each user to specify all the-+ > >options for themselves, including price.0 > >:Q > How ? Your protocol is central mailhub to central mailhub it says nothing about 4 > any mechanism for a user to request these options.  G Of course it doesn't. Why should it? SMTP doesn't tell you to do an RBLn: lookup, or to go check a user list when you get a RCPT_TO:@ anybody@abc.com. That's up to whoever is implemting the receiverF service. E.G. HP's TCPIP SMTP Service doesn't even give you the option to check a user's list.e   > + > >> I cannot see any reason for wanting toD@ > >>    specify individual size blocks for different Mime types. > >hK > >Options. Just because you can't see it now, doesn't mean you won't see ahH > >reason for it in the future. The "cost" to provide it is zero, so why > >not give the option.d > >nT > >>    ESMTP can already apply blocks up front for actual size of messages, numbers > >>    of recipients etc0 > >>& > >> 3) The provision of fee charging. > >>S > >>    Assuming that 100% identification could be achieved which is a prerequisite7  > >>    for any charging system.R > >>    Firstly the costs per MB or whatever should be up front before any sendingS > >>    of from or recipient addresses. THis could be achieved with ESMP with costslI > >>    being relayed back to the sender in response to the EHLO command.tS > >>    Rather than providing a new protocol the additional commands required for aeS > >>    feebased system could be added to ESMTP - thats the whole point of ESMTP iti > >>    is extensible. > >wH > >Unless ESMTP provides that 2nd phase, it's not going to be effective. > >a > O > As I have said time and time again your second connection provides absolutely 
 > nothing.   See previous responses.    >  > >>M > >>    In short I don't see that this protocol provides anything not alreadyeQ > >>    available in the existing protocols (or which could not be added - in thedP > >>    case of charging). In particular it does not provide any additional help5 > >>    in identifying the sender of a piece of mail.  > >> > > E > >That's the beauty, I don't have to care who the sender is if I can " > >collect a fee for receiving it! > >n > O > Good luck in trying to collect that fee. The lawyers will make a lot of moneyi > I doubt you will.   E I'm not trying to make a lot of money on this. If there is continuingoB trouble collecting fees from an ESP they will be marked as such by eosawki.org.       -- M   Have VMS, Will Travelo Wire paladin, San Franciscoc   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:43:48 +0100h' From: The Genius <heavybrain@bigIQ.com>i# Subject: Read this and weap, twats! & Message-ID: <3F7B66B4.50404@bigIQ.com>  G I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now, laughing iD at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each others OS, and I F can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete loosers.  Let me  break it down as follows:-   Linucks Lusers:a  I Linfux (or any unix in general) is the biggest piece of shit going. it's oI had its day in the seventies, and just doesn't know when its time is up. 7@   The man pages were written by geeks for geeks, and is totally F unintuitive, and is about as much help as turd that wont flush.  Only C complete morons, with very long hair and smelly beards (ie richard n stallman) uses unix these days.     
 Windozers:  I What a completly fucked up OS that is.   Based upon a superior OS (VMS), lE but bastardised into a complete piece of shit, with so many security .? holes, its a wonder the whole planet is not sueing the butt of 9F Microshite.  Can someone answer a simple question?  Why the fuck does H windoze servers require a GUI to work.  It doesn't need it!!!  Its just A a file, print and possiblly a database server.  No GUI required!  I Everything can be done from the command line.  Does microshite know that u) is products will be used to total morons??      I Let me tell you about a totally superior OS, VMS.  VMS is without doubt, ,G the most intuative, helpful OS that has ever existed.  The help system dG is the best ever, and will tell you exactly what you want to know, and pE how to execute a command properly.  VMS is by far the most stable OS  E going, requiring no periodical pathes, only an upgrade (if you want)  H every 2 or 3 years.  It doesn't get viruses of any sort whatsoever, and I does not suffer from denial of service attacks that both Linucks (or any -I usix) and Winshite does.  In fact it is superior to all OSs in every way.G  G I will continue to lurk in your groups for a laugh, but remember this:-s  H Linucks is for lusers, and makes you stupid.  Windoze if for people who  are stupid to begin with.<       The Genius.....    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:00:49 +0100m' From: The Genius <heavybrain@bigIQ.com>e' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!c( Message-ID: <3F7B6AB1.9030509@bigIQ.com>   relic wrote: > The Genius wrote:a > H >>I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now, laughingE >>at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each others OS, and Ia? >>can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete loosers.i >  > M > Another one.  Perhaps you have a problem with the runs, you should try some  > medication for it, loser.i >   H Why, have you got something that you use often that you could recommend  Linucks Luser.   The Genius....   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:06:35 -0700s+ From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> ' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats! % Message-ID: <3F7B6C0B.20803@MMaz.com>    The Genius wrote:b   >gI > I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now, laughing uF > at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each others OS, and I H > can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete loosers.  Let me  > break it down as follows:- >l [snip]  F > Linucks is for lusers, and makes you stupid.  Windoze if for people  > who are stupid to begin with.p  G Only an insecure twit would make such a profane posting, anonymously.  nE You have no credentials, no credibility, and nothing constructive to i1 say, so climb back under your rock and go away...e     BarryO       -- b  > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                        f   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:11:04 +0100n' From: The Genius <heavybrain@bigIQ.com>o' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!-( Message-ID: <3F7B6D18.7090705@bigIQ.com>   relic wrote: > The Genius wrote:a >  >>relic wrote: >> >>>The Genius wrote: >>>o >>>eA >>>>I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now,:F >>>>laughing at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each othersB >>>>OS, and I can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete
 >>>>loosers. i >>>o >>>PE >>>Another one.  Perhaps you have a problem with the runs, you should % >>>try some medication for it, loser.r >>>y >>? >>Why, have you got something that you use often that you couldo >>recommend Linucks Luser. >> >  > ! > I don't have a 'loose' problem.. > F   Eh, sorry, but every time you turn on your PC, a little bit of your + Linucks Luser brain falls out of your arse.r   The Genius.....e   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Oct 2003 09:45:23 +1000 , From: "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!g: Message-ID: <2PdurX7ipfjlB1DE7A44Jseed154L40N@internet.sk>   The Genius wrote:-  	 [Windows]   C > What a completly fucked up OS that is.   Based upon a superior OSj > (VMS),   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!   -- s@ Kadaitcha Man: Kicking fuckwits in the head on Usenet since 19891                http://kadaitcha.kicks-ass.org:83/s%                Linux makes you stupidr   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:48:58 GMTs& From: "relic" <reply.to@newsgroup.com>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats! 7 Message-ID: <KJJeb.37502$5z.33690@twister.socal.rr.com>i   The Genius wrote:iH > I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now, laughingE > at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each others OS, and Is? > can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete loosers.   K Another one.  Perhaps you have a problem with the runs, you should try somes medication for it, loser.h   -- i	 - relic -g@ 24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:02:41 GMT & From: "relic" <reply.to@newsgroup.com>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!v7 Message-ID: <BWJeb.37505$5z.20689@twister.socal.rr.com>    The Genius wrote:a > relic wrote: >> The Genius wrote: >> tA >>> I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now,sF >>> laughing at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each othersB >>> OS, and I can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete
 >>> loosers. e >> d >> pE >> Another one.  Perhaps you have a problem with the runs, you shoulde% >> try some medication for it, loser.- >> - > ? > Why, have you got something that you use often that you couldo > recommend Linucks Luser. >    I don't have a 'loose' problem.-   -- a	 - relic -s@ 24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:09:57 -05006 From: Sinister Midget <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!t3 Message-ID: <slrnbnmr6k.aq.sinister@home.harry.net>o   <html><input type crash></html>h   Read that, Windozer.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:11:56 GMTr& From: "relic" <reply.to@newsgroup.com>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!e6 Message-ID: <g3Keb.37507$5z.5982@twister.socal.rr.com>   The Genius wrote:b > relic wrote: >> The Genius wrote: >>   >>> relic wrote: >>>  >>>> The Genius wrote: >>>> w >>>> mC >>>>> I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now,cH >>>>> laughing at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each othersD >>>>> OS, and I can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete >>>>> *loosers* ., >>>> e >>>> DG >>>> Another one.  Perhaps you have a problem with the runs, you shoulda' >>>> try some medication for it, loser.m >>>> : >>> A >>> Why, have you got something that you use often that you couldA >>> recommend Linucks Luser. >>>  >> a >>  " >> I don't have a 'loose' problem. >> nG >   Eh, sorry, but every time you turn on your PC, a little bit of youru- > Linucks Luser brain falls out of your arse.  >  > The Genius.....i   It's not 'loosers'   -- G	 - relic - @ 24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:23:05 GMTr' From: "Diogenes" <diogenes@Laertius.gr>c' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!l@ Message-ID: <414316d7399be876fde9227181b16899@news.teranews.com>   Sinister Midget wrote: > Read that, Windozer.  4 Read what?  It must be true: linux makes you stupid.   --   Diogenes Laertiusm   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:55:18 +0100w' From: The Genius <heavybrain@bigIQ.com>w' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!a( Message-ID: <3F7B7776.2080904@bigIQ.com>   Rick wrote:s7 > On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:43:48 +0100, The Genius wrote:n	 > (snip)   >  >>The Genius.....  >  > ... is an idiot.  % A repeat from a previous thread......u      G You are jealous because you mind does not encompass the grand scale of p@ things.  To you, people you consider are idiots, have much more 2 intellect, and wit than you could possibly imagine   Remember this:-a  H Linucks is for Lusers, and makes you stupid.  Windoze is for people who  are stupid to begin with.b     The Genius.....o  % So now youv'e get it twice air brain.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:05:13 -0400n* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!t) Message-ID: <3F7B79AF.4B83FA35@istop.com>u   The Genius wrote: J > Let me tell you about a totally superior OS, VMS.  VMS is without doubt,7 > the most intuative, helpful OS that has ever existed.d  2 Hey Bob Ceculski, have you gotten a new username ?   :-) :-) :-) :-)u   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:10:40 -04000 From: "The Judge" <TheJudge@ReplyAtTheGroup.com>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!d9 Message-ID: <EOLeb.5142$op2.621265@news20.bellglobal.com>t  8 Spinster I miss you!! You don`t even reply to my poast!!   -- i You Have Been Judged!!!a Linux Makes You Stupid!!!e And Keeps You Stupid!!!!!!  C "Sinister Midget" <sinister@kcsmart.spamMEnot.rog> wrote in message,- news:slrnbnmr6k.aq.sinister@home.harry.net...' > Read that, Windozer.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:59:35 -0500y( From: Michael Rice <marice@whiteice.com>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!s/ Message-ID: <vnn54qs4apfj02@corp.supernews.com>c  ' On 10/1/2003 7:11 PM, The Genius wrote:t >  >  > relic wrote: >  >> The Genius wrote: >> >>> relic wrote: >>>L >>>> The Genius wrote: >>>> >>>>C >>>>> I,ve been lurking in both your usenet groups for a while now,aH >>>>> laughing at the trolls from both sides, having a go at each othersD >>>>> OS, and I can't help feeeling that the lot of you are complete >>>>> loosers. g >>>> >>>> >>>>G >>>> Another one.  Perhaps you have a problem with the runs, you shouldl' >>>> try some medication for it, loser.. >>>> >>>iA >>> Why, have you got something that you use often that you coulde >>> recommend Linucks Luser. >>>a >> >>" >> I don't have a 'loose' problem. >>G >  Eh, sorry, but every time you turn on your PC, a little bit of your f- > Linucks Luser brain falls out of your arse.e >  > The Genius.....t >   F How credible can you hope to be, since you appear to be posting using # Mozilla...running on a Windows box.u   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:56:21 GMTt& From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats! " Message-ID: <1065066981@sheol.org>  # : The Genius <heavybrain@bigIQ.com>c : Read this and weap, twats!  M "Weap".  "Genius".  A self-contradictory juxtaposition if ever there was one.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:57:34 +1200  From: Mark <Win98@www.com>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!b6 Message-ID: <J5Oeb.165381$JA5.4080670@news.xtra.co.nz>   The Genius wrote:n >  > 
 > Rick wrote:  > 8 >> On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:43:48 +0100, The Genius wrote:	 >> (snip)s >> >>> The Genius.....  >> >> >> ... is an idiot.a >  > ' > A repeat from a previous thread......  >  >  > I > You are jealous because you mind does not encompass the grand scale of hB > things.  To you, people you consider are idiots, have much more 4 > intellect, and wit than you could possibly imagine >  > Remember this:-a > J > Linucks is for Lusers, and makes you stupid.  Windoze is for people who  > are stupid to begin with.t >  >  > The Genius.....  > ' > So now youv'e get it twice air brain.a > > Whats the matter? Can't you use MS software to post on usenet? Or is it just (TM)BROKE?   -- a On my Win 98 box. ! Why? Because I like bug catching.c Or maybe because I love OSS!   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Oct 2003 14:54:12 +1000t, From: "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>' Subject: Re: Read this and weap, twats!rE Message-ID: <cQ5BkasPfIKK1CE0A7AFJhlWNH3oILWE@mail.ats-computers.com>   3 "Wayne Throop" <throopw@sheol.org> wrote in messagee news:1065066981@sheol.org...% > : The Genius <heavybrain@bigIQ.com>o > : Read this and weap, twats! >cJ > "Weap".  "Genius".  A self-contradictory juxtaposition if ever there was > one.  : A bit like "Wayne". "Throop". "Signs of intelligent life".   -- a@ Kadaitcha Man: Kicking fuckwits in the head on Usenet since 19891                http://kadaitcha.kicks-ass.org:83/c%                Linux makes you stupidi   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 14:30:08 -0500 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) D Subject: Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS)3 Message-ID: <M+AoQSdoV1UR@eisner.encompasserve.org>   q In article <cf15391e.0310011005.2907f0dc@posting.google.com>, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes: j > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<$m2MhdUJRCeq@eisner.encompasserve.org>... >> So what machine is that ? >  > It's described as: > # > rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting serverb > A > rx2600 1.3GHz CPU server, 1GB DDR memory quad, 36GB 15K HotplugiE > Ultra320 LP Disk Drive, DVD-ROM Slimline Drive, tower bezel upgradeh  B Thanks Keith.  That looks good.  Even if I don't know what a tower bezel does :-)  G We seem to be making progress with the VMS Symposium registration staff F (the fellow who managed to send me plain text agreed to pass his hintsK around to co-workers, presumably including Brian Schenkenberger's contact).   # Perhaps someday we will reach DSPP.y   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:32:22 GMTm# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) D Subject: Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS)2 Message-ID: <qRGeb.6122$lC2.2398@news.cpqcorp.net>  c In article <M+AoQSdoV1UR@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:ur :In article <cf15391e.0310011005.2907f0dc@posting.google.com>, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes:k :> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<$m2MhdUJRCeq@eisner.encompasserve.org>...- :>> So what machine is that ?n :> g :> It's described as:a :> t$ :> rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server :> eB :> rx2600 1.3GHz CPU server, 1GB DDR memory quad, 36GB 15K HotplugF :> Ultra320 LP Disk Drive, DVD-ROM Slimline Drive, tower bezel upgrade :0C :Thanks Keith.  That looks good.  Even if I don't know what a towerc :bezel does :-)u  G   The rx2600 enclosure is often mounted as a 1U rackmount, and the box mE   can also be optionally mounted on its end; as a pedestal enclosure.i     Here are the pictures:  >     http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/entry_level/        rx2600/images/rx2600_R.jpg  >     http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/entry_level/%       rx2600/images/rx2600_detail.jpga  D   Check with the DSPP or rx2600 folks for specific details here, butC   I *believe* the tower bezel kit will get you something that looksr.   like the first of the two URLs listed above.  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqaN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comn   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:43:55 -0600h% From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com>yD Subject: Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS)A Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001153932.02113d20@raptor.psccos.com>e  * At 02:32 PM 10/1/2003, Hoff Hoffman wrote:K >In article <M+AoQSdoV1UR@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net e >(Larry Kilgallen) writes:@ >:In article <cf15391e.0310011005.2907f0dc@posting.google.com>, 4 >keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes:= >:> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message r0 >news:<$m2MhdUJRCeq@eisner.encompasserve.org>... >:>> So what machine is that ? >:>o >:> It's described as: >:>e% >:> rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting serverd >:>eC >:> rx2600 1.3GHz CPU server, 1GB DDR memory quad, 36GB 15K HotplugiG >:> Ultra320 LP Disk Drive, DVD-ROM Slimline Drive, tower bezel upgraden >:D >:Thanks Keith.  That looks good.  Even if I don't know what a tower >:bezel does :-) >sH >   The rx2600 enclosure is often mounted as a 1U rackmount, and the boxG >   can also be optionally mounted on its end; as a pedestal enclosure.n >  >   Here are the pictures: >t@ >     http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/entry_level/" >       rx2600/images/rx2600_R.jpg >m@ >     http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/entry_level/' >       rx2600/images/rx2600_detail.jpgi >OF >   Check with the DSPP or rx2600 folks for specific details here, butE >   I *believe* the tower bezel kit will get you something that looksa0 >   like the first of the two URLs listed above.  H Well, don't expect to get *too* much from them - it's like pulling teethG to get any information from anybody at HP on the configuration of theseeD systems beyond the "stock" box.  A very frustrating several hours ofI phone work and email, plus fruitless web searching, has netted me a bunch-F of "well, maybe" and/or "well, I don't know" for virtually any kind ofI question you ask - if the person on the phone even knows that "VMS" isn'tnI the same thing as "HP-UX" (yes, I was actually asked that question by the1I a *TECHNICAL* guy at DSPP, who are supposed to know something about thesei
 systems!).   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:35:57 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger)yD Subject: Re: rx2600 OpenVMS I64 porting server (was: affordable VMS)L Message-ID: <rdeininger-0110032245090001@user-105n954.dialup.mindspring.com>  H In article <qRGeb.6122$lC2.2398@news.cpqcorp.net>, hoff@hp.nospam wrote:    H >  The rx2600 enclosure is often mounted as a 1U rackmount, and the box F >  can also be optionally mounted on its end; as a pedestal enclosure.  $ rx2600 fills 2U in a rack, actually.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:39:04 +1000U From: "Antony Wardle" <remove_clothes_antony.wardle@_remove_clothers_optusnet.com.au>t" Subject: shadowing the system disk; Message-ID: <3f7b497a$0$9828$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>@  0 Haven't been able to figure out what I have done wrong, or what I have missed.e  # Trying to shadow a vax system disk.    shadowing                = 2 shadow_max_copy  =1># shad_sys_unit          = 0   (dsa0).   and I have run an autogen.  ( I am assuming that a nas250 licence will0 let me do shadowing? I get a shadow config error/ on startup, no licence problems mentioned, thena5 it will continue starting up as normal, but no shadowC9 system disk. I think I have missed something, but I can't ! figure out what. Any suggestions?   1 Vax4000-96 2Gb system disk, VaxVMS 7.3, 48Mb ram.e     --->& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003w   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:04:48 +0100( From: "John Travell" <john@jomatech.com>& Subject: Re: shadowing the system disk9 Message-ID: <blfmii$bskdb$1@ID-120847.news.uni-berlin.de>a   "Antony Wardle"tH <remove_clothes_antony.wardle@_remove_clothers_optusnet.com.au> wrote in= message news:3f7b497a$0$9828$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>2 > Haven't been able to figure out what I have done > wrong, or what I have missed.o >o% > Trying to shadow a vax system disk.n >w > shadowing                = 2 > shadow_max_copy  =1t% > shad_sys_unit          = 0   (dsa0)d >  > and I have run an autogen. >t* > I am assuming that a nas250 licence will2 > let me do shadowing? I get a shadow config error1 > on startup, no licence problems mentioned, thene7 > it will continue starting up as normal, but no shadow ; > system disk. I think I have missed something, but I can'tf# > figure out what. Any suggestions?u >a  ! What is "shadow_sys_disk" set to.nI it needs to be 1 before your system disk can be a member of a shadow set.r     -- John Travell" Independent VMS crashdump analyst. john- at - jomatech - dot - com  +44-(0)23-92552229 http://www.jomatech.com/             ---i& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 19/09/2003    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 19:34:24 -0700r From: mdea002@aol.com (md)& Subject: Re: shadowing the system disk= Message-ID: <f60e8f30.0310011834.33ae295f@posting.google.com>:   "Antony Wardle" <remove_clothes_antony.wardle@_remove_clothers_optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3f7b497a$0$9828$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...2 > Haven't been able to figure out what I have done > wrong, or what I have missed.c > % > Trying to shadow a vax system disk.s >  > shadowing                = 2 > shadow_max_copy  =1u% > shad_sys_unit          = 0   (dsa0)n >  > and I have run an autogen. > * > I am assuming that a nas250 licence will2 > let me do shadowing? I get a shadow config error1 > on startup, no licence problems mentioned, thens7 > it will continue starting up as normal, but no shadowe; > system disk. I think I have missed something, but I can'to# > figure out what. Any suggestions?  > 3 > Vax4000-96 2Gb system disk, VaxVMS 7.3, 48Mb ram.  >  >  > ---i( > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.< > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).C > Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003      Tony,   T Try setting SHADOW_SYS_DISK to 1.  This will enable shadowing for the system disk.     Example:   $ MCR SYSGEN SYSGEN> USE CURRENT  SYSGEN> SET SHADOW_SYS_DISK 1o SYSGEN> WRITE CURRENT  SYSGEN> EXIT     md   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:58:10 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")E Subject: Upgrading Tomcat - will my configuration files be preserved?n6 Message-ID: <00A26B9B.BF939C12@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>   Comp.os.vmsers --   O I want to upgrade Tomcat to the new version released in September.  The release L notes advise doing a full PRODUCT REMOVE of the previous version and then a N PRODUCT INSTALL of the new, presumably to remove dependencies in Apache on theE old version and avoid an unpleasant situation where Apache won't run.   O What worries me about doing that is that we have a Tomcat configuraton file andeL various applications set up in the config tree.  Will the PRODUCT REMOVE zapN them and PRODUCT INSTALL create a new, empty tree?  (That's not what I want toL have happen, and I don't really want to have to get creative with BACKUP to 8 avoid having to recreate all that stuff from scratch.)    K Previous CSWS upgrades have done what I think was the right thing - left myr configuration files in place.p   Can anyone speak to this?u   Thanks,m   -- Alan    --  O ===============================================================================a0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056 M  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025oO ===============================================================================u   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:22:43 GMT ) From: "Rick Barry" <richard.barry@hp.com>eI Subject: Re: Upgrading Tomcat - will my configuration files be preserved?m2 Message-ID: <nIGeb.6119$3s2.1758@news.cpqcorp.net>  H >"Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr"" <winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>A wrote in message news:00A26B9B.BF939C12@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU...h > Comp.os.vmsers --m >oI > I want to upgrade Tomcat to the new version released in September.  The  releasesK > notes advise doing a full PRODUCT REMOVE of the previous version and thene afL > PRODUCT INSTALL of the new, presumably to remove dependencies in Apache on thenG > old version and avoid an unpleasant situation where Apache won't run.p >oH > What worries me about doing that is that we have a Tomcat configuraton file andJ > various applications set up in the config tree.  Will the PRODUCT REMOVE zap H > them and PRODUCT INSTALL create a new, empty tree?  (That's not what I want tooJ > have happen, and I don't really want to have to get creative with BACKUP to8 > avoid having to recreate all that stuff from scratch.) >eJ > Previous CSWS upgrades have done what I think was the right thing - left my > configuration files in place.p >e > Can anyone speak to this?  >s	 > Thanks,f >t	 > -- AlanT >t > -- > L ============================================================================ === 2 >  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUA >  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:r 650/926-3056G >  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA  94025e >iL ============================================================================ ===d     Hi Alan,  K The CSWS_JAVA V2.1 kit will prompt you before deleting the [.TOMCAT...] andaJ [.ANT...] directory trees during a PCSI PRODUCT REMOVE command. If you say0 "NO", the kit will retain those directory trees.  J As always, make a backup copy of these directories before removing the kitC to give you an option of restoring things should anything go wrong.    Regards,  
 Rick Barry" Secure Web Server Development Team Hewlett Packard Companyn   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:20:00 GMTa# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)I. Subject: Re: VMS graphics monitors for dummies2 Message-ID: <ANFeb.6112$ei2.1747@news.cpqcorp.net>  w In article <bldpge$g7c$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:i  G :Probably the standard "came from the factory" in the various machines.d% :I'll try to collect the information.u  K   Comparatively few VAX and Alpha graphics-capable systems could be orderedaJ   with exactly one specific graphics controller -- even those systems withF   integrated graphics could variously have optional or add-on graphicsH   adapters, for instance.  If the box has a TURBOchannel or PCI or otherF   such I/O bus, I have no way to predict which graphics controller youJ   will actually find within the box -- given the aftermarket, I can't evenF   be certain that the controller you find is one supported by OpenVMS.    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqaN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.come   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Oct 2003 15:57:53 -0700s/ From: kenneth.randell@verizon.net (Ken Randell)p; Subject: Re: VMS JVM implementation of sub-process deletiont= Message-ID: <79de9693.0310011457.340a14be@posting.google.com>t  V "John Apps" <john.apps@hp.com> wrote in message news:<3f79b356@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...   <snip>  5 > I checked this with some folks and their reply was:f > G > # 1 appears to be a "feature" of the CRTL. I have notified the folks oG > there and they are looking into it. Hope to hear back from them soon.  > : > # 2 appears to be the "way it should work". For example: > $ type t.com > $spawn/nowait @t1c > $ wait 00:00:05.  > $ write sys$Output "waiting 5" > $ exit >  > $ type t1.comi > $!spawn/nowait @t1 > $ wait 00:00:10n! > $ write sys$Output "waiting 10"t > $ exit > $spawn/nowait @t- > %DCL-S-SPAWNED, process SYSTEM 137 spawned o8 > $ %DCL-S-SPAWNED, process SYSTEM 178 spawned waiting 5B > SECURE::SYSTEM 08:57:48 (DCL) CPU=00:00:38.22 PF=12630 IO=84078 	 > MEM=171> > $iD > ^^^^^See waiting 10 never appeared, the child was stop along with  > SYSTEM 137 > J > Not sure if the above helps a great deal? Let's take this offline if it  > does not! F > One quick (inevitable) question: have you tried this with any other  > versions of VMS and Java?   B I'll attempt this with the field test version of 7.3-2 and/or JAVA8 1.4.1-2 and see what I get.  Thanks for the information.  E The above mentioned 'feature' of the C RTL seems at best inconsistent = to me.  As I said earlier, it would seem logical to me that aeD 'Process.destroy()' would be implemented by a $DELPRC call, but this does not seem to be the case.s   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:36:46 -0400) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>e; Subject: Re: VMS Technical Update seminar (the Netherlands) 7 Message-ID: <XiLeb.3524$r.760842@news20.bellglobal.com>r  2 "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> wrote in messageL news:FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB0D877D@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net...   [snip]   >Simon,e >i >Re: UNIX portability kits ..l >h
 >Why wait? >f >:-) >l >Check out:gC >http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/porting.html and ..a >u' >http://h71000.www7.hp.com/portability/ I >"While the OpenVMS UNIX Portability Initiative eases the porting of UNIX?G >applications to OpenVMS, it also facilitates the porting of many otherwI >types of applications to OpenVMS. Linux applications, Java applications, D >and most Open Source applications benefit from the UNIX Portability >initiative. >oH >To accomplish its goals, the UNIX Portability Initiative provides a setA >of UNIX (POSIX) interfaces and tools within OpenVMS in a native, J >:integrated fashion. This eliminates performance issues associated with a9 >layered emulator solution and enhances interoperability.d >t >*Goals* >w, >Native OpenVMS behavior remains the default > D >OpenVMS can be like any other "flavor" of UNIX (for example, HP-UX, >Tru64, Solaris, AIX, Linux) >>G >Cost of porting from UNIX to OpenVMS is equal or comparable to porting%D >one "flavor" of UNIX to another (for example,from Solaris to HP-UX) >n >Regards >s >Kerry Main   M To add to Kerry's point(s), at the Canadian seminar we were told that OpenVMS N engineering uses Apache sources pretty much as-is when building CSWS (but theyN still must add VMS specific custom modules to dip into SYSUAF etc.). I seem toG remember someone saying that this was possible because Apache was POSIX J compliant. Also, someone mentioned that the POSIX interface on OpenVMS wasM able to translate UNIX style path names into VMS style path names. (hopefullyn4 my memory isn't playing tricks on me after 3 months)  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,d Ontario, Canada.! http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/r8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.545 ************************