1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 06 Oct 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 554       Contents:& ABS/MDMS and a BreeceHill tape library Re: AMD64 sales figures  Re: AMD64 sales figures  Re: AMD64 sales figures  Re: AMD64 sales figures  Re: AMD64 sales figures  Re: AMD64 sales figures  Re: AMD64 sales figures 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file 3 Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file # Another VMS advertising opporutnity  Antiword 0.34 for VMS  Re: DCL improvements Re: DCL improvements Re: DCL improvements Re: DS15 systems have arrived @ 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...)7 Re: Fixed device names for incoming Telnet connections? 7 Re: Fixed device names for incoming Telnet connections? < Re: HP lures Solaris users with Linux (was: Sun takes a hit) interesting reading on SANB Re: OT: Don't use the word "begin" when sending to Microsoft users@ Re: OT: Don't use the word BEGIN when sending to Microsoft users@ Re: OT: Don't use the word BEGIN when sending to Microsoft usersD Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?D Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?D Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ? Securing "virtual" devices Re: Securing "virtual" devices Re: Securing "virtual" devices' Re: Simple question : foum DCL -> ici ? ' Re: Simple question : foum DCL -> ici ? ' Re: Simple question : foum DCL -> ici ?  Re: SMTP receiver logs Re: Sun takes a hit  Re: Sun takes a hit  Re: Sun takes a hit  Re: Sun takes a hit  Re: Sun takes a hit ) Re: Transfer speed over Ethernet and ADSL ) Re: Transfer speed over Ethernet and ADSL  Unrecognized printer with DCPS" Re: Unrecognized printer with DCPS2 Re: VMS JVM implementation of sub-process deletion Re: VMS system on the web O Re: worries about files opened by audit server and security server on  shutdown   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 07:10:25 -0700 $ From: benitos@stcc.cc.tx.us (Benito)/ Subject: ABS/MDMS and a BreeceHill tape library = Message-ID: <ad6309a1.0310060610.44af4991@posting.google.com>    Hello Everyone. 7 I am trying to get ABS/MDMS to successfully work with a C MTI(BreeceHill)Q7 1530 tape library with 28 slots and 2 quantum dlt D 7000 drives. The problem right now is that the library does not autoC unload after a tape loads to a drive.  I have to mount/dismount the > drive (via OpenVms), only at that point is ABS/MDMS is able to@ dismount the drive.  The problem with that is, that I have to beB shutting down the MDMS server since it allocates the drives to its= process.  I am also having a hard time configuring ABS/MDMS.  D MRU/Robot seems to work much better but I have the same problem with' the unloading of tapes from the drives.   9 I know there must me someone out there that has done this 8 successfully, right??  I hope so.  Thank you in advance.   Benito Salinas benitos@stcc.cc.tx.us    ------------------------------  * Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 12:43:33 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk  Subject: Re: AMD64 sales figures) Message-ID: <blmf9l$n3h$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   [ In article <3F7E21AD.2419B98B@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:  >Keith Parris wrote: >>  l >> bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message news:<blhr8a$c5rba$1@ID-135708.news.uni-berlin.de>...L >> > I believe he is refering to "Technical features needed to support VMS".J >> > The argument has always been (at least from my limited understanding)G >> > that the x86 acrhitecture lacked modes/features needed to make VMS  >> > work as it is intended. >>  G >> VMS running on Charon-VAX on x86 would seem to be an existence proof $ >> that this argument must be false. > J >....with the exception that the VEL (VAX Emulation Layer) is necessary to >make up for said lack.  > I Apart from the fact that this VEL is implemented on top of an existing OS F how is this different than for Instance Windows NT running on top of aM Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to isolate it from the underlying hardware ?   M The VEL must eventually produce machine code running directly on the hardware G hence it must be possible to implement it directly without the need for  an intermediary OS.   L As to performance - how much is this affected by the fact the VEL is runningK on top of another OS ? How much would performance increase if it were to be 6 implemented directly as a hardware abstraction layer ?  M I believe others have stated in the past that the lack of necessary modes etc I in IA32 is a myth. From the 386 onwards the necessary modes have existed.   J Emulating the VAX architecture on IA32 in order to run VMS can't have been* easy. The VAX architecture is complicated.  M Porting the cleaner Alpha code to run on another 64bit architecture should as K shown by the port to IA64 be easier. If the VMS engineers can port from the N clean Alpha Risc chip to the bloated EPIC Itanium chip then I doubt they wouldH have much trouble porting to AMD's 64 bit chip or any compatible 64 bit D Intel chip. Whether they will be allowed to do so is another matter.  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University       >--  >David J. Dachtera >dba DJE Systems >http://www.djesys.com/  > ) >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:   >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 05:49:56 -0400 * From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <stan@stanq.com>  Subject: Re: AMD64 sales figures/ Message-ID: <3F810284.28474.121BA459@localhost>   * On 5 Oct 2003 at 22:00, mist dragon wrote:@ > However, to continue on the issue Stan, can Charon-Vax emulateF > alpha-code on intel pc ? Afaik not because Alpha is 64 bit and intel< > 32. Now, could it emulate Alpha on AMD64 ? Or at Itanium ?  D CHARON-VAX emulates a VAX, so the brief answer is no.  However, you F can expect to hear of a CHARON-ALPHA product someday.  Emulating a 64-B bit processor on a 32-bit system would be slooow.  I would expect E performance on a 64-bit processor (Itanium, AMD, etc.) would be much   better.   
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------C Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  +1 614-868-1363  Fax: +1 614 868-1671 1 8572 North Spring Ct. NW, Pickerington, OH  43147 = Preferred address:  stan@stanq.com       http://www.stanq.com    ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 07:28:28 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)   Subject: Re: AMD64 sales figures3 Message-ID: <VS6mkz8FF4o7@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3F7F17BE.2A0CBFC7@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > Tom Linden wrote: B >> I would have thought that you might have empirically determined% >> that (with certain qualifications)  >> x Ghz Alpha = y Ghz Pentium > N > Does Charron-VAX emulated a pure VAX architecture, and thus the VMS OS isn'tN > aware at all of its trye environment, or does Charron-VAX include some extraB > drivers that provide an interface between VMS and the emulator ?  G    Charon-VAX looks like VAX hardware to whatever OS is running on it.  H    Most folks seem to use it to run VMS, but IIRC Ultrix has been booted$    on it and VAXeln should also run.  F    Many parts of Charon-VAX look like hardware, but are implemented inB    software.  Not only the VAX CPU, but also disk drives, ethernet@    cards, and such.  These things look like ordinary software to<    Windows.  Since special drivers are not used you can haveA    problems sharing the PC's ethernet port with Windows, they can H    both talk to the rest of the world, but not to each other.  I believeF    someone posted a link to a special driver for Windows to get around    that last one.    ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 07:43:07 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)   Subject: Re: AMD64 sales figures3 Message-ID: <vsqlp31WolL$@eisner.encompasserve.org>   J In article <blmf9l$n3h$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>K > Apart from the fact that this VEL is implemented on top of an existing OS H > how is this different than for Instance Windows NT running on top of aO > Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to isolate it from the underlying hardware ?   D   Very different.  A hardware abstraction layer typically alters theH   way hardware appears to behave so that it will fill an abstract model,C   without adding features.  For example, one might add an interlock D   abstraction, but it would be built on top of an existing interlockF   feature.  But the application code would still see this as executionE   of native mode instructions.  That's quite different from writing a F   true emulator, which reads non-native mode instructions, and behavesF   like a different processor, including implementing features the host   doesn't have.    > O > The VEL must eventually produce machine code running directly on the hardware I > hence it must be possible to implement it directly without the need for  > an intermediary OS.   H    You can do lots of things without an OS.  It's just earier to do them    on top of an OS.    ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 07:35:28 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)   Subject: Re: AMD64 sales figures3 Message-ID: <kfm9pCNCIuQy@eisner.encompasserve.org>   n In article <7500353b.0310052100.3e1e3177@posting.google.com>, mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon) writes: > @ > However, to continue on the issue Stan, can Charon-Vax emulateF > alpha-code on intel pc ? Afaik not because Alpha is 64 bit and intel< > 32. Now, could it emulate Alpha on AMD64 ? Or at Itanium ?  J    There is no reason why an emulator's host need have an address size as K    big as the target.  I've seen 64 bit PowerPC emulators for 32 bit Intel. C    For years folks emulated DEC's 36 bit computers on 32 bit VAXen.   F    However, Alpha are so fast that emulating one on a Pentium doesn't G    make sense.  The latest Pentium might not run an Alpha emulator fast D    enough to keep up with a low end EV4.  You could buy a good cheapH    older Alpha for less than the cost of a commercial emulator, if there    was one.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:55:20 +0100 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>   Subject: Re: AMD64 sales figures0 Message-ID: <bls399$42o$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Keith Parris wrote:  > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bljec2$7v0$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > G >>But MS probably only wants one, having to maintain two 64bit versions 9 >>of Windows will cost MS more than only maintaining one.  >  > D > With that logic, Microsoft shouldn't do Office for Mac, because it0 > costs them something to recompile for PowerPC. > H > Microsoft will provide software for each of the markets which it wants > to serve.  >  > E >>No one including Intel thinks that there is a mass market for 64bit C >>desktop Itanium systems but MS make a big chunk of their revenues C >>from Desktop OS's and an even bigger chunk from Office which runs 
 >>on them. >  > F > But they get higher profits on Datacenter servers and the SQL Server* > and Exchange software which run on them. >   	 Do they ?   4 As in so many other ways the facts contradict you in
 this as well.   ; The client division (windows desktop OS's) made 8.4 billion % dollars on revenues of 10.394 billion   = The information worker division Office etc made 7.037 billion  on revenues of 9.229 billion.   @ The Server and tools division (Windows datacenter, Exchange etc)( made 2.457 on revenues of 7.140 billion.  ? Of put another way the facts are to opposite to your statement.   < In fact the desktop and desktop tools contributed a total of> 15.437 billion to MS's profits as opposed to 2.457 for servers3 and at a much higher margin that servers and tools.       B >>So what would you do if you were MS, go with the 64bit arch thatA >>gives you 64bit destktop bragging rights and unit volumes (AMD) > >>and keep Itanium as well just for old times sake with Intel. >>Or just support x86-64.  >  > G > But Microsoft is attempting to move beyond just the razor-thin-margin C > desktop market and get into the higher-margin datacenter market.  G > x86-64 isn't aimed at the datacenter.  And despite all the talk about F > Sun dumping SPARC for x86-64, it can't (except maybe in workstationsE > and low-end boxes), because Opteron supports 8-way SMP at best, and A > Sun would find it difficult to make 64-way SMP servers with it.     A As I said the facts don't support this read Microsofts SEC filing @ you will find that razor thin was entirely the wrong choice, you should have said huge fat.  A It may be razor thin for people like HP as hardware suppliers but  it isn't for Microsoft.    regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:15:55 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>   Subject: Re: AMD64 sales figures1 Message-ID: <%yggb.6379$Lg.5002@news.cpqcorp.net>   + <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message # news:blmf9l$n3h$1@news.mdx.ac.uk... = > In article <3F7E21AD.2419B98B@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera"  <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:  > >Keith Parris wrote: > >>8 > >> bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message5 news:<blhr8a$c5rba$1@ID-135708.news.uni-berlin.de>... H > >> > I believe he is refering to "Technical features needed to support VMS". L > >> > The argument has always been (at least from my limited understanding)I > >> > that the x86 acrhitecture lacked modes/features needed to make VMS  > >> > work as it is intended. > >>I > >> VMS running on Charon-VAX on x86 would seem to be an existence proof & > >> that this argument must be false. > > L > >....with the exception that the VEL (VAX Emulation Layer) is necessary to > >make up for said lack.  > > K > Apart from the fact that this VEL is implemented on top of an existing OS H > how is this different than for Instance Windows NT running on top of aD > Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to isolate it from the underlying
 hardware ? > F > The VEL must eventually produce machine code running directly on the hardwareI > hence it must be possible to implement it directly without the need for  > an intermediary OS.  > F > As to performance - how much is this affected by the fact the VEL is running J > on top of another OS ? How much would performance increase if it were to be8 > implemented directly as a hardware abstraction layer ? > K > I believe others have stated in the past that the lack of necessary modes  etc K > in IA32 is a myth. From the 386 onwards the necessary modes have existed.  > L > Emulating the VAX architecture on IA32 in order to run VMS can't have been, > easy. The VAX architecture is complicated. > L > Porting the cleaner Alpha code to run on another 64bit architecture should asI > shown by the port to IA64 be easier. If the VMS engineers can port from  the J > clean Alpha Risc chip to the bloated EPIC Itanium chip then I doubt they would I > have much trouble porting to AMD's 64 bit chip or any compatible 64 bit F > Intel chip. Whether they will be allowed to do so is another matter. >   J Provided that AMD64 gets the EFI Framework enablement (probably not on theG horizon), the main problem would simply be time and resources.  I would K expect at least 2 years of development, with a significant part of it being I compilers and linker.  I would expect some complications at the low-level  details.  J On the other hand, I have no expectation of any issue regarding AMD64 thatK would cause either Intel or HP to back off on IA64.  The only thing I heard J is FUD from competetors and a handful of people who either are anti-Intel,I anti-HP, or anti-VMS.  All of it is wishful thinking based on speculation F that the AMD64 extended x86 will make even a dent in Intel IA32 sales.   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 02:04:49 -0700 . From: martinkirby12@yahoo.co.uk (Martin Kirby)< Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file< Message-ID: <224291b.0310060104.7dd67359@posting.google.com>  H DECwindows MAIL opens the file using a call of fopen (filename, "r"). I M assume that the C compiler maps this to a FAB$V_SHRGET access. SHRGET access  K is not compatible with the file being opened FAB$V_NIL. That is the default ( locking when a file is opened for write.  M DECwindows MAIL could open the file FAB$V_UPI, to bypass locking, but that is M risky since it couldn't guarantee the consistency of the file. A complication I is that the same function is used for sending a file immediately as when  F including it in an edit. In the former case, sending inconsistent dataK could be unexpected whereas with an include the user can review the content  before sending.    Martin Kirby DECwindows Engineering  [ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<3F7E7E21.10219CD6@istop.com>... K > Ok, I seem to be finding bugs in VMS at a faster rate that people produce  > viruses for Microsoft :-)  > I > VAX VMS 7.2. In DECwindows MAIL, while composing a message, if I try to P > include a VMS file (FILE ->INCLUDE FILE),  I am not allowed to include a fullyA > readable log file from an executing job because it is locked...  > M > So I must open a decterm windown, type the log file, then cut and paste the - > contents into the decwindows mail edit box.  > P > Why would decwindows mail try to open the file with exclusive access (probably$ > write) just to read its contents ? >  > O > Sue, get your whip, and find the engineer responsible for this and get him to , > fix this quick :-) ;-) ;-) ;-) :-) ;-) ;-)   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 07:57:36 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) < Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file3 Message-ID: <BYKvTWgcqhlG@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3F7E7E21.10219CD6@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > I > VAX VMS 7.2. In DECwindows MAIL, while composing a message, if I try to P > include a VMS file (FILE ->INCLUDE FILE),  I am not allowed to include a fullyA > readable log file from an executing job because it is locked...   C    I would say that this is not a bug.  A decision to make access a D    potentially incomplete and possibly inconsistent file should takeF    an extra step.  Just because some other OS don't bother adding thisC    level of reliability doesn't make it's presence a bug.  MAIL has F    no way of knowing why the file is open and what's being done to it.  F    It might be a nice new feature if this was built into VMS mail, but*    lack of this feature is also not a bug.   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 08:00:06 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) < Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file3 Message-ID: <vHh+TBhzobeX@eisner.encompasserve.org>   m In article <224291b.0310060104.7dd67359@posting.google.com>, martinkirby12@yahoo.co.uk (Martin Kirby) writes: J > DECwindows MAIL opens the file using a call of fopen (filename, "r"). I @ > assume that the C compiler maps this to a FAB$V_SHRGET access.  ;    I would be suprized if that mapped to share of any kind.    ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 07:59:13 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) < Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file3 Message-ID: <4hawJ2uDy2Me@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3F80B35A.C63FF8F9@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > M > I am not sure about EDT. Doesn't EDT do random access to a text file during N > the edit session as you scroll up and down ?  I could see it being a problemP > if EDT thinks the file is 100 lines long, but during an edit session, the fileL > grows to 200 lines. TPU takes one snapshot of the file into memory (or the$ > page file when memory is limited).  H   EDT does not keep an input file open.  Try "show device/files" and you   can see so for yourself.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:54:24 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>< Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file) Message-ID: <3F81902F.A164BC21@istop.com>    Martin Kirby wrote:  > H > DECwindows MAIL opens the file using a call of fopen (filename, "r").   H You could change it to fopen(filename,"r","shr=put") (or whatever properJ sharing to signify that you only intent to read the file if the writer has allowed you to read it).  O > DECwindows MAIL could open the file FAB$V_UPI, to bypass locking, but that is @ > risky since it couldn't guarantee the consistency of the file.  K Does UPI actually bypass locking ? I thought that if the writer of the file K hasn't specified that it is ok to read the file, then nobody except perhaps - backup/ignore=interlock could read the file.    L If you intend to only read the text of the file, are there cases where thereK would be inconsistencies ? (if you read an indexed file, it will be via its L primary key, and you either get or don't get a new record that has just beenN inserted in the middle, correct ?). And if it is a log file, you either get or= don't get the last buffer that was flushed to file, correct ?   ! This is no different from "Type".   M Perhaps you might want to issue a warning to indicate that the file is opened 0 by someone else, "do you still want to proceed".     > A complicationJ > is that the same function is used for sending a file immediately as when > including it in an edit.  + Again, the warning would solve the problem.   L Note that I just tried in character cell mail, and it also prevents one from mailing a log file.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:04:43 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>< Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file) Message-ID: <3F819299.81068BF9@istop.com>    Bob Koehler wrote:E >    I would say that this is not a bug.  A decision to make access a F >    potentially incomplete and possibly inconsistent file should take >    an extra step.   J If the writer of the file has explicitely said that it is ok for others to? read the file, then why should a reader decide not to read it ?    ------------------------------  * Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:02:21 +0000 (UTC), From: lewis@PROBE.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis)< Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file. Message-ID: <bls76t$dp0$1@newslocal.mitre.org>   koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes in article <BYKvTWgcqhlG@eisner.encompasserve.org> dated 6 Oct 2003 07:57:36 -0500:W >In article <3F7E7E21.10219CD6@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:  >>  J >> VAX VMS 7.2. In DECwindows MAIL, while composing a message, if I try toQ >> include a VMS file (FILE ->INCLUDE FILE),  I am not allowed to include a fully B >> readable log file from an executing job because it is locked... > D >   I would say that this is not a bug.  A decision to make access aE >   potentially incomplete and possibly inconsistent file should take G >   an extra step.  Just because some other OS don't bother adding this D >   level of reliability doesn't make it's presence a bug.  MAIL hasG >   no way of knowing why the file is open and what's being done to it.   # Let's talk about this in VMS terms:           LCK$K_NLMODE  Null mode. 7        LCK$K_CRMODE  Concurrent read.	$ open/read/share 9        LCK$K_CWMODE  Concurrent write.	$ open/write/share 0        LCK$K_PRMODE  Protected read.	$ open/read=        LCK$K_PWMODE  Protected write.	$ open/write/share=read -        LCK$K_EXMODE  Exclusive.		$ open/write   K It appears that batch jobs keep their logs open in "protected write", which ? means that "concurrent read" is OK but "protected read" is not.   I Here's the inconsistency:  TPU (like TYPE) seems to use "concurrent read" G while DECW$MAIL uses "protected read".  What's the difference?  In both L cases, you can immediately view the included file to see if you included theE right thing.  IMHO that validates TPU's philosophy.  DECW$MAIL should  change.   G If you're including an attachment you won't see before you send, that's B different.  But Decwindows mail doesn't seem to have that feature.  + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.org > The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:10:43 -0500 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com> < Subject: Re: Another huge bug: DECwindows MAIL: include file2 Message-ID: <3F81A213.CF436DE@applied-synergy.com>   Martin Kirby wrote:  > I > DECwindows MAIL opens the file using a call of fopen (filename, "r"). I N > assume that the C compiler maps this to a FAB$V_SHRGET access. SHRGET accessM > is not compatible with the file being opened FAB$V_NIL. That is the default * > locking when a file is opened for write.  D As far as I know, fopen opens the file with no sharing.  To open the+ file with sharing, it is necessary to call:   " 	fopen (filename, "r", "shr=get");  G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:37:22 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> , Subject: Another VMS advertising opporutnityI Message-ID: <C6fgb.123565$3r1.72690@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   J Will HP take advantage of the burgeoning 'public awareness' of the problem0 with Microsoft products to actively promote VMS?   Why of course not.  K Will carly(tm), marcello, et. al. take time from their hunt for leaks (does L anyone remember the paranoia of the White House 'Plumbers'?) and start doingK their real job - marketing and promoting the sales of VMS to new customers?   	 Any bets?    -----------------------------   L http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/ArticL le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1065391808462&call_pageid=968350072197&col=9690488638 51   and    http://www.mi2g.com/       Oct. 6, 2003. 07:04 AM  * Software 'mono culture' threatens security   By TYLER HAMILTON     G Has the world become too dependent on Microsoft Corp. for its computing K needs, and if so, are we putting our economy and critical infrastructure at  risk?   F It's a question that more companies and governments are asking as theyJ consider how security vulnerabilities in Microsoft software make their own operations vulnerable.  E U.K.-based computer security firm mi2g Ltd. released some interesting I figures last week that put the issue into perspective. According to mi2g, H terrorist actions in 2001 cost the global insurance industry between $55 billion and $70 billion (U.S.).   L By comparison, it estimates that viruses and other malicious attacks againstJ Microsoft systems in August and September alone caused $64.5 billion worth of damages worldwide.   E Damages include lost productivity, the cost of upgrading software and K hardware to deal with the damage, and recovery costs. The impact of viruses L such as Swen, Sobig and Blaster have hurt developed and developing countries alike.  K Closer to home, just one of these nasty Internet bugs was enough to cripple ! Air Canada's reservations system.   E And it could have been much worse, mi2g warns, pointing out that "the H malware incidents in August and September were not as malevolent as theyI could have been." For example, "the major virus and worm versions did not B delete critical data or decapitate computer systems immediately on> infection. The next variants of malware may not be so benign."  J Last week, a report from anti-virus software firm Symantec Corp. concludedK that the global epidemic of Internet viruses will only intensify. "Symantec I expects to see greater worm propagation resulting in overloads to network A hardware, crippling network traffic and seriously preventing both 4 individuals and businesses from using the Internet."  K DK Matai, executive chairman of mi2g, agrees that the bugs will get meaner, L and as they do, this could cause a "total collapse in trust" associated withF present-day computing software. In other words, a collapse of trust inB Microsoft, which has failed to assuage fears with its two-year-old! Trustworthy Computing initiative.   L Call Matai a doomsayer with an agenda to sell more of his company's securityJ services, but he wouldn't be the first to raise the point. And while we'veL heard such concerns expressed before, the warnings have become more frequent and assertive in recent days.   H As mentioned in last week's column, the U.S. Computer and CommunicationsK Industry Association presented a report to some U.S. legislators last month G flagging similar issues. "Microsoft's monopoly threatens consumers in a C number of ways, but it is clear that it is now also a threat to our L security, our safety, and even our national security," said Ed Black, CEO ofF the CCIA, an organization that supports open systems and whose members+ clearly have a bone to pick with Microsoft.   L The CCIA points out that by signing a five-year, $90 million (U.S.) contractJ with Microsoft to supply Windows software to 140,000 government employees,L the U.S. Department of Homeland Security may be putting national security atI risk. "Just as farmers diversify their crops or investors diversify their K stocks to mitigate risk, so too should the federal government diversify the  software it uses," it reported.   L Airlines, hydro facilities, government departments, nuclear power stations -8 you name it - they're all part of this fragile equation.  I In an interview with Fortune magazine this month, computing visionary and J tech-whiz Bill Joy, former chief scientist at Sun Microsystems Inc., was aF bit more prophetic about the lack of diversity on the Internet and theG problem this poses under the relentless threat of computer "pathogens."   J "Nature deals with breakdowns in a complex system with evolution . . . TheJ Internet is an ecology, so if you build a species on it that is vulnerable< to a certain pathogen, it can very well undergo extinction."  L By the way, added Joy, "species that go extinct tend to have limited geneticD diversity." Asked if he was referring to Microsoft specifically, JoyL responded, "I wasn't thinking about any particular piece of software, but ifB you're running a monoculture of software - duh, this is not good."  L Introduce a healthy balance of different species - Windows, Mac, Linux - andI attacks on one are less catastrophic to an otherwise delicate eco-system.   L Citing Microsoft's monolithic, monoculture software, a proposed class-actionK lawsuit was filed against the world's largest software company last week in L California. "Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software has createdH a global security risk," the suit states, adding later that "the world'sE computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure."   D Keep in mind Microsoft gets sued all the time, and that class-actionJ lawsuits emerge in the United States as frequently as bullets fly in Iraq,I but could this foreshadow yet another legal quagmire for Willie Gates and  his top general Stevie Ballmer?   K But forget the courts - Microsoft is probably more concerned about the rise K of Linux and the open-source software movement these days. The company used C to belittle Linux and write off its potential as a threat, but with J increased calls for diversity in computing, Gates and Balmer aren't making jokes anymore.  F Earlier this year, Microsoft overcame its stubbornness and reluctantlyE opened up its source code for Windows to the Chinese government. Why? G Because as a huge and fast-growing economy, China matters now, and with I officials threatening to embrace Linux - a cheaper option that gives them B more control over computer security - Microsoft bowed to pressure.  K Yet even this major feat for Microsoft isn't a slam dunk on Linux. The fact6J is that Asian governments are realizing the security and economic benefitsI of software diversification. They might not abandon Microsoft altogether,eJ but they're now willing to dedicate more of their budgets to alternatives.  K No shock, then, when it was reported last month that China, Japan and SouthlC Korea have entered an agreement to co-develop their own open-source L operating system, based on Linux, as a counter-balance to Windows. This callH for diversity has since migrated to Europe and is beginning to influence% decision-makers in the United States.i  E Do you think Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, was laughing when officials inmK Munich, the third-largest city in Germany, decided in May to convert 14,000cL government desktop computers from Windows to Linux? Heck no, Ballmer cut hisG vacation short and paid a visit to the mayor. Munich stuck to its guns,n; though Microsoft agreed to match its Linux rivals on price.i  A Munich simply wanted more control over its computing systems, andsC open-source systems allow this by letting users look under the hoodlJ themselves so they can fix - or simply tune up - the engine. It's the sameG reason the State of Massachusetts came out with a new policy last month L signalling its future preferential treatment of open-source software such as, Linux when it comes to technology purchases.  L A blow to Microsoft? You bet, particularly if this trend catches fire. MakesI one wonder what the City of Toronto, which has roughly the same number ofc2 desktop systems as Munich, is thinking these days.  K The Star had a chance to talk about this issue with Bob Young, the CanadianiF co-founder and former chief executive of Red Hat Inc., one of the mostL high-profile Linux providers in the world. Young is scheduled to speak aboutG the future of Linux at a Toronto dinner event on Wednesday, held by the ( Canadian Information Processing Society.  H The great thing about Young is how gracious he is when reflecting on theL rise of Linux over the past 10 years, calling Microsoft "one of the best-runJ technology companies in the world." That said, he takes immense delight inK seeing Linux become a force of change and said it's encouraging to see morerB governments and corporations giving the technology a serious look.  K "Back when we (the open-source movement) started in 1993, you could put alloK of us geeks into a single room," says Young. "What we saw back then is thateK this was a long shot. All we could say at the time is, if we were right, ifeJ our model delivered the benefits we thought it would, this was going to be huge.0  J "What's fun for me in hindsight is being part of that vision and seeing it all come to pass."  L When it comes down to it, Linux is turning heads because it reduces costs orC protects revenues for cash-strapped organizations, not because it's L inherently more secure or supports a policy of IT diversity, says Young, who, is still a Red Hat director and shareholder.  F Not that security or diversity aren't underlying factors, but they areL almost always tied to financial motive. If a virus takes down your MicrosoftI network, you lose productivity. If you can run a computer system for lesse! money, the boss is happy. Period.y  G "Five years ago the damage from viruses was not yet that severe becausecB companies didn't build their business models on top of an InternetK strategy," he says, adding that when the network goes down today, it can belD crippling for a business, and this fact alone has more organizations checking out Linux..  K Again, Young is not suggesting Linux is more secure than Microsoft Windows.:I It's more that organizations can take control and react to security holes$K more quickly when they use open-source software, otherwise they have to siteJ back and wait for Microsoft to issue a patch. And if you're less dependentK on a single operating system, you're more secure simply because attacks aree" divided and therefore less potent.  E Microsoft, by the way, is slowly conceding that the "patch" method of L solving security issues isn't satisfactory, and in addition to spending moreL time analyzing security flaws in its code, the software firm is developing aJ "shield technology" that would block viruses and hackers before they cause havoc.  J Sounds like a George W. Bush approach to solving software security issues,J and like Bush and his secure-the-perimeter approach to fighting terrorism,9 it may be more public relations stunt than anything else.n  J Big makes a big target - it's that simple. Shooting one big duck is easierK than shooting three smaller ones. We don't need more security. We just needc$ to embrace the choices we are given.   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 14:48:43 +0200a' From: huber@mppmu.mpg.de (Joseph Huber)e Subject: Antiword 0.34 for VMS+ Message-ID: <pER$bAfK6+Ae@vms.mppmu.mpg.de>i  A  I compiled Antiword V 0.34 on VMS 7.3  with just a small change FQ  vers the distribution (http://www.winfield.demon.nl/linux/antiword-0.34.tar.gz).c  S  For details see http://wwwvms.mppmu.mpg.de/~huber/pds/antiword/antiword_vms.html .a  . -- o>    Joseph "Sepp" Huber, Muenchen   http://www.huber-joseph.de/   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:43:13 +0200 " From: Guy Peleg <guy.peleg@hp.com> Subject: Re: DCL improvementsh& Message-ID: <3F814741.DED2BD9D@hp.com>   Hi Hans,  : I'm currently working on WHILE - expected release is V8.2.  N As for F$GETDVI("AVL") I agree that FALSE should be returned. Could you please logaM a call with your local support center and have it escalated to engineering? IS will provide you a fix to your9 current version and will make sure to include it in V8.2.w   Guys   H Vlems wrote:   > Guy, >-M > now that you convinced us all that DCL is the way to go I'd like to suggestu > a few improvements:  >jL > 1) a WHILE statement that allows building loops a little better than using	 > GOTO's:t >0% >     WHILE <boolean expression> [DO]e >     .t >     .h >     ENDWHILE >hC >     The keyword DO is optional, it serves no syntactical purpose.iL >     A FOR statement ( la ALGOL60) would be equally fine but offers little > more functionality.e > M > 2) IIRC you mentioned a CASE statement as well. Though it simplifies codingAD > multiple evaluations of expressions, it may also slow down the DCL3 > processor. If so, I'd happily do without CASE :-)a >-N > 3) A CHECK command would be nice: it would check the syntax of a DCL command* > procedure without actually executing it. >.M > 4) F$GETDVI("<diskdevice>","AVL") returns an error message when a device istL > not available, and crash the DCL code. Would it break other software if it > would return FALSE instead?- >-L > 5) Is it possible to implement FUNCTIONs with parameters that allow return	 > values?e >. >     FUNCTION FUNC(I,J) >     .D >     .f >     RETURN  (I+J)V >k > Hans Vlems   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:08:58 GMTi" From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: DCL improvementsu0 Message-ID: <00A26F61.330B7175@SendSpamHere.ORG>  K In article <3F814741.DED2BD9D@hp.com>, Guy Peleg <guy.peleg@hp.com> writes:m	 >Hi Hans,s >a; >I'm currently working on WHILE - expected release is V8.2.S >nO >As for F$GETDVI("AVL") I agree that FALSE should be returned. Could you pleasea >logN >a call with your local support center and have it escalated to engineering? I >will provide you a fix to youre: >current version and will make sure to include it in V8.2. >M >Guy  J That solution would lead to false FALSE returns.  I believe it should stayI as is returning %SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHDEV.  The proper way to use AVL should be.K to first check if device EXISTS then, if true, check AVL.  I'd bet changingT. this behavior now would break many procedures.     -- SL VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM            w5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:14:07 GMTp3 From: hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond)o Subject: Re: DCL improvements-2 Message-ID: <zUdgb.6359$0%7.4042@news.cpqcorp.net>  : In article <blmifo$e1rvk$1@ID-143435.news.uni-berlin.de>, * "H Vlems" <hvlems.nieuw@zonnet.nl> writes: ..L >now that you convinced us all that DCL is the way to go I'd like to suggest >a few improvements: ..M >3) A CHECK command would be nice: it would check the syntax of a DCL commandi) >procedure without actually executing it.s  D Although no "check" command will catch all possible run-time errors,I DCL_CHECK catches many sytax errors.  IT is available on the freeware CD,wG although a bit out-of-date.  Email me (see below) and I'll email you anaC up-to-date copy.  (Email to an OpenVMS mail address may be easier.).   -- xJ       Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale  FL  USAF           (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)J       All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:39:59 GMTs# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>e& Subject: Re: DS15 systems have arrivedI Message-ID: <39fgb.123593$3r1.38491@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>    Larry Kilgallen wrote:@ > In article <86brsv5pp7.fsf@skylane.kjsl.com>, Javier Henderson > <javier@KJSL.COM> writes: 2 >> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: >>E >>> In article <blkmu8$ddmid$2@ID-152801.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael-" >>> Unger <unger@decus.de> writes:3 >>>> On 2003-10-03 01:06, "Robert Deininger" wrote:s >>>>8 >>>>> The DS15 has appeared on the alphaserver web page: >>>>> ; >>>>> http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/ds15/index.htmlt >>>>>5 >>>>> [...]2 >>>>>eG >>>>> The QuickSpecs, Overview, Technical Summary, and User's Guide are:$ >>>>> available from the above page. >>>>G >>>> That seems to be the first "entry level legacy-free system", i.e.,AG >>>> no parallel port and no diskette drive (which I don't miss at all)  >>>> ... >>> ) >>> It still seems to use a PS2 keyboard.t >> >> Is that bad?  >> >> I think it's good.g > & > Good or bad, I think it is "legacy".  H The last keyboard and mouse I purchased a few weeks ago were USB devices. which came with a thumb-sized USB-PS2 adapter.   ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:03:17 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)r) Message-ID: <blpfc4$ohi$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>a  o In article <bllu0g$559$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) writes:mK >In article <bll0tv$8rn$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: K >>Just thought of another flaw with this approach of looking for <CR>.<CR> .
 >>packets. >>K >>Encryption. A fair number of systems are now encrypting the whole virtualaO >>SMTP connection between their central mailhubs and any other central mailhubs>M >>which support TLS/SSL with SMTP. Admittedly the number of systems currentlyn3 >>doing this is relatively small but it is growing. J >>Since the whole virtual connection is encrypted you cannot look into the* >>packets for a sequence such as <CR>.<CR> >.O >There are two points: if it is a completely encrypted channel it requires some M >sort of mutual consent between the two endpoints. Here I wouldn't expect any O >spam, so no need for any fee. If the mail as such is encrypted but transferred 1 >via SMTP we have still the <CR>.<CR> at the end.f >eJ This isn't the case. The TSL/SSL encryption is between central mailhubs itO is NOT end to end encryption of a mail message content like for instance PGP oroI SMIME. To the end users sending or receiving the mail message their is noeO indication that it has been encrypted in it travels - the sender just sends therM message. If SPAM is passed to central mailhub A destined for a user served by.E central mailhub B then it will be passed along the encrypted channel.vI How is central mailhub A supposed to know it is SPAM ? Please define SPAMi@ in an unambigouous manner which every recipient would agree on ?  1 The way SMTP with TSL works is one of two ways :-t    / 1) Mailhub A connects to port 465 on Mailhub B. "    An encrypted key is negotiated.>    A new encrypted connection is made to port 25 on Mailhub B.9    The whole SMTP dialogue is then carried out encrypted.>     or  : 2) Mailhub A connects unencrypted to port 25 on Mailhub B.L    Mailhub B responds to the ehlo command telling Mailhub A that it supports'    encryption via the starttls command.mG    Mailhub A sends the STARTTLS command an encrypted key is negotiated.t<    All subsequent packets sent over this link are encrypted.    O A mailhub may support one or both of these methods of establishing an encrypted-
 SMTP link.  I In both these cases no intervening system will find any packet containingsG <CR>.<CR> which signals the end of the mail message - it is conceivablePL that it might pickup encrypted packet(s) not meaning the end of the message 4 containing amongst other things the string <CR>.<CR>    L >>Admittedly you might be able to get around this by looking instead for theJ >>initial setting up of the encrypted channel but this gets messy as theirM >>is more than one way of setting this up and you would also still need to be3+ >>looking for normal unencrypted smtp mail.a  K As I said you could get around this by looking for connections to port 465,gD the STARTTLS command and unencrypted mail. But that is rather messy.    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University         >8P >There are two different things: one is the principle (here: how do I succeed inC >charging the sender for the traffic it produces) and the technicalaO >implementation. I am open to any other technical suggestions but at the moments, >I think the <CR>.<CR> approach is the best. >t	 >Regards,  >   Christoph Gartmann >s >-- F > Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452 > ImmunbiologieeJ > Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de > D-79011  Freiburg, Germany: >               http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html   ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:18:25 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) ) Message-ID: <blpg8h$onk$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>r  o In article <bllu79$559$2@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann) writes:eK >In article <bll4r1$a3n$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:gN >>No spammer sends out those numbers of mail messages. They would tie up their >>machines for too long. >iD >This depends. There are sites in the world that live from spamming. >tP >>The spammer sends out a very few mail messages with large numbers of envelope L >>recipients and lets other systems generate all the separate mail messages. >rL >The spam that I see has mostly around 10 to 20 envelope recipients, most of >them directed to our domain.t >FO You are confusing the To list in the mailbody with the envelope recipient list.rH The envelope recipient list is what is used to actually deliver the mailM message the from and to addresses you see are equivalent to the addresses youh9 put at the top of a formal letter - they are meaningless.6N The envelope recipient address is rewritten by each mailhub the message passesM through. If the original envelope recipients consisted of 50 addresses of the F form user@company-x.com and 50 of the form user@company-y.com then theN mailhub would split this into two messages each with only half of the envelopeK recipients. Hence when the message arrived at the mailhub for company-y.compN it would only have the 50 addresses of the form user@company-y.com in its listM of envelope recipients. By the time it is delivered to a particular user onlyuD that user's mail address will be in the list of envelope recipients.    M >>That's the other problem with your idea. International net company A has norM >>idea of the context of the packet it is seeing hence it has no idea whethertP >>this packet is part of a mail message destined for one user at the destinationN >>system or a 1000 users at the destination system. Most modern mailhubs don'tB >>split a message to multiple recipients until they are forced to.G >>If mailhub A has received a message for 100 people  - 50 of whom are u? >>of the form user@company-x.com and 50 of whom are of the form M >>user@company-y.com it will generate two mail messages with the appropriate EF >>envelope recipient addresses and forward them onto the mailhubs for " >>company-x.com and company-y.com.O >>Only when they arrive at these company's mailhubs will further splitting into $ >>multiple mail messages take place. >oN >This will only work if the mail-hub is something like an open-relay. I'm sureJ >these open relays will disappear if they have to pay for their "service". >   G NO. This happens with ALL modern mailhubs. The only difference with an  N open-relay is that it allows messages to come in from outside it's domain and J be sent out again. Whereas a normal mailhub should reject any unauthorised4 external mail not directed to people in it's domain.J In the example above mailhub A is not an open-relay the message to the 100; users has originated from one of that organisation's users.   
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University    	 >Regards,e >   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: 6 Oct 2003 10:24:06 GMTe< From: gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann)I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) 0 Message-ID: <blrfs6$8l3$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>  J In article <blpfc4$ohi$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:K >This isn't the case. The TSL/SSL encryption is between central mailhubs it7P >is NOT end to end encryption of a mail message content like for instance PGP orJ >SMIME. To the end users sending or receiving the mail message their is noP >indication that it has been encrypted in it travels - the sender just sends theN >message. If SPAM is passed to central mailhub A destined for a user served byF >central mailhub B then it will be passed along the encrypted channel.  K Ok, I understand. But as long as SPAM is sent to mailhub A the spammer willxN have to pay and there is no need for an additional fee. This will work as longH as most e-mails crossing the net are still terminated with a <CR>.<CR> .  J >How is central mailhub A supposed to know it is SPAM ? Please define SPAMA >in an unambigouous manner which every recipient would agree on ?n  N Defining SPAM is a real problem. If it would be easy there would be no need toN force fee-based e-mails. But if the sender or sending host of an e-mail has toK pay for each message there will be no need any more for mailhub A to detect- SPAM.   2 >The way SMTP with TSL works is one of two ways :-   Thanks for the explanation.K  J >In both these cases no intervening system will find any packet containingH ><CR>.<CR> which signals the end of the mail message - it is conceivableM >that it might pickup encrypted packet(s) not meaning the end of the message r5 >containing amongst other things the string <CR>.<CR>f   [...]i  L >As I said you could get around this by looking for connections to port 465,E >the STARTTLS command and unencrypted mail. But that is rather messy.-  O If we assume that most messages still have the <CR>.<CR> bytes there is time tonL develop a better technical solution for the e-mail fee. It looks as if it is
 still doable.n   Regards,    Christoph GartmannM   -- rE  Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452z  ImmunbiologieI  Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot dem  D-79011  Freiburg, Germany 9                http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.htmle   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 10:55:47 GMTu< From: gartmann@non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens (Christoph Gartmann)I Subject: Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...) 0 Message-ID: <blrhnj$8l3$2@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>  J In article <blpg8h$onk$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:M >>The spam that I see has mostly around 10 to 20 envelope recipients, most ofi >>them directed to our domain. >>P >You are confusing the To list in the mailbody with the envelope recipient list.  H No, I am very aware between the difference between a "To:"-header and anJ envelope-to-header. From time to time we analyze the SPAM that reaches us.G And we found that the number of envelope headers is very limited. Ok, InJ cannot tell whether the messages came from the original spam host or via aL relay. But in both cases the fee would be applicable. It would be reduced byJ a factor of 10 or 20 which is not what I like but it would still be a fee.  H >NO. This happens with ALL modern mailhubs. The only difference with an O >open-relay is that it allows messages to come in from outside it's domain and iK >be sent out again. Whereas a normal mailhub should reject any unauthorised 5 >external mail not directed to people in it's domain.nK >In the example above mailhub A is not an open-relay the message to the 100a< >users has originated from one of that organisation's users.  K Then it is quite ok when mailhub A is charged. Perhaps it is then better torL switch from the <CR>.<CR> approach to a "RCPT TO:" approach. This would meanN that we have a slightly higher chance of charging for mails that have not beenJ successfully delivered. But I think as it is only a very small fee, normal users wouldn't mind.   Regards,    Christoph Gartmanne   -- eE  Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452t  ImmunbiologieI  Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot dei  D-79011  Freiburg, Germanyl9                http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:22:09 GMTo- From: "labadie" <tonari_no_tottoro@127.0.0.1>A@ Subject: Re: Fixed device names for incoming Telnet connections?2 Message-ID: <RC9gb.6351$9S7.6113@news.cpqcorp.net>  ? "Wilm Boerhout" <w.boerhoutOLD@PAINTplanet.nl> wrote in messagen$ news:blk26u$75e$1@reader08.wxs.nl...B > Way back when, I used to think up solutions for customers on VMSE > systems. Nowadays, I seem to be back in the field. For one of thesea$ > solutions, the following question: >-C > Can I tweak UCX to generate fixed TNAn: device names for incomingrI > connections based on, say, the IP address of the originating interface?D1 > I used to do this for incoming LAT connections.p >@H > If Yes to the above, can I have alternae controller names, in order toG > generate TNBn: and TNCn: device names? SYSGEN CONNECT TNB0 /WHATEVER, I > and of course specify the Whatever and anything else to tell the TelnetjA > server that for some IP addresses, TNBn: or TNCn: is to be usedd >  > Wilm Boerhouts >  Hellog  J I am not sure about what you want to achieve, but, you can do, for example   $ telnet/create alpha1 23 61210 this will create on node alpha1 a device tna6121  7 When you have ended, you should do something similar too $ telnet/delete 6121 to delete the device tna6121   Look ato $ telnet help createk   regardse   Grard   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:23:26 +0200i2 From: Wilm Boerhout <w.boerhoutOLD@PAINTplanet.nl>@ Subject: Re: Fixed device names for incoming Telnet connections?* Message-ID: <bls51s$3cr$1@reader10.wxs.nl>   labadie wrote:A > "Wilm Boerhout" <w.boerhoutOLD@PAINTplanet.nl> wrote in messagea& > news:blk26u$75e$1@reader08.wxs.nl... > B >>Way back when, I used to think up solutions for customers on VMSE >>systems. Nowadays, I seem to be back in the field. For one of these $ >>solutions, the following question: >>C >>Can I tweak UCX to generate fixed TNAn: device names for incoming I >>connections based on, say, the IP address of the originating interface?n1 >>I used to do this for incoming LAT connections.s >>H >>If Yes to the above, can I have alternae controller names, in order toG >>generate TNBn: and TNCn: device names? SYSGEN CONNECT TNB0 /WHATEVER,fI >>and of course specify the Whatever and anything else to tell the TelnetlA >>server that for some IP addresses, TNBn: or TNCn: is to be usedc >> >>Wilm Boerhoute >> >  > Helloa > L > I am not sure about what you want to achieve, but, you can do, for example >   > $ telnet/create alpha1 23 61212 > this will create on node alpha1 a device tna6121 > 9 > When you have ended, you should do something similar to  > $ telnet/delete 6121 > to delete the device tna6121 > 	 > Look atm
 > $ telnet
 > help createg > 	 > regardsw >  > Grard >  > F I'm trying to extend the life of an 20 yr old application whose users F get part of the functionality based on terminal names (TXA3:) that is G looked up in a table. Table entries may be changed, but are restricted s to 4 characters.  E Users logging in freely via Telnet, would eventually wind up getting a? TNA10: as login device, and the application method would break.n  D So, creating the TNAn: is possible (provided n <> 0 I presume). How I could I force an incoming connection to attach to this particular device?-  I And, I need more than 9 devices. Is the assumption that I can create and e$ attach to TNBn: worth investigating?  B I am also investigating other scenarios, involving logical names. I Assuming that physical device TXB$: is not present in the system, DEFINE : TXA4: as the login device.   Thnks, Wilm   w.boerhoutOLD@PAINTplanet.nl( <remove OLD PAINT from address to reply>   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 05:52:10 -0700a( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)E Subject: Re: HP lures Solaris users with Linux (was: Sun takes a hit) = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0310060452.504b849d@posting.google.com>m  h Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<tFNB7K4WI3nG@eisner.encompasserve.org>..._ > In article <3F7FF321.64F09CCE@sture.homeip.net>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes:  > D > >> Friday morning, Hewlett Packard announced that it would pay SunA > >> customers $25,000 to switch to HP computers running Linux OS3 > >> freeware."e > > D > > But this is something I don't get. Why is HP pushing Linux as anJ > > alternative to Solaris rather than HP-UX, or even, heaven forbid, VMS? > > C > > Why not give those away and go for the software maintenance and  > > consulting revenue?d > a > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=74&ncid=738&e=9&u=/cmp/20031004/tc_cmp/15201274  > 9 > 	Jamie Gruener at the Yankee Group thinks the payout isr7 > 	an aggressive move by HP to convert more Sun Solaris 6 > 	customers to Linux. For many vendors, Gruener says,: > 	Linux is becoming neutral territory in which to attract> > 	new customers. "Customers must decide if Solaris is still a9 > 	better platform for their needs," Gruener says. "Linuxe: > 	doesn't yet do all that Solaris can, but some customers- > 	don't need all Solaris' features, either."t   neither have security ... :)   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 03:11:35 -0700w' From: s_sharma32@hotmail.com (ccie_san)t# Subject: interesting reading on SAN = Message-ID: <4c2fb3dc.0310060211.77c30c07@posting.google.com>   . how to reduce cost and increase availability :  P http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/ps4159/ps4358/prod_white_papers_list.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:04:59 +0200n$ From: Michael Unger <unger@decus.de>K Subject: Re: OT: Don't use the word "begin" when sending to Microsoft usersn9 Message-ID: <blrij4$f15ga$2@ID-152801.news.uni-berlin.de>.  & On 2003-10-05 22:42, "JF Mezei" wrote:   > For a good laugh:e+ > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=265230    Well, not really news ...e  H > (of course this is a microsoft site, so disable javascript, java etc). >  > P > Essentially, you cannot begin a message with the word "begin  " (followed by 2N > spaces). If you do, even though the message is marked as text/plain, OutlookO > will interpret this as the start of a uuencoded attachement, not realise thatuO > it isn't and will then complain about the attachement being invalid. (insteadMM > of reverting to text/plain the minute the begin header is seen as invalid).s > P > Microsoft's solution is to use words such as "Commence", or capitalise "Begin"9 > to make sure that microsoft users can read the message.i >  > [...]h  7 Some do start their mails with "begin" on purpose like:r   | beginn | On ..., ... wrote: |t | ...o | ...w | ...a |d | -- | endeA | If you can't read this message your mail/news client is broken.t' | Please don't use a MacroShit program.   : putting the associated "end" statement into the signature.   Michaeln   -- t; Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.h@ Please do *not* send "Security Patch Notifications" or "SecurityA Updates"; this system isn't running a Micro$oft operating system.s= And don't annoy me <mailto:postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> please ;-)    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:22:10 -0500( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com>I Subject: Re: OT: Don't use the word BEGIN when sending to Microsoft usersa/ Message-ID: <00A26F63.05306B17.1@tachysoft.com>h   >o >For a good laugh:* >http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=265230 >iG >(of course this is a microsoft site, so disable javascript, java etc).g >r >nO >Essentially, you cannot begin a message with the word "begin  " (followed by 2cM >spaces). If you do, even though the message is marked as text/plain, OutlookhN >will interpret this as the start of a uuencoded attachement, not realise thatN >it isn't and will then complain about the attachement being invalid. (insteadL >of reverting to text/plain the minute the begin header is seen as invalid).  E This is the funniest damn shit I've ever heard.  I knew billyware waspJ braindead, but in this case the brain is not dead, but completely missing.  O >Microsoft's solution is to use words such as "Commence", or capitalise "Begin"t8 >to make sure that microsoft users can read the message.  N That's "solution", all right.   Typical.  Don't fix it, give people a bullshit workaround..  7 I don't like "commence".  I think I'll use "get it on".n   WayneiO ===============================================================================tN Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html   yO ===============================================================================oH Randolph Duke (in Trading Places): "Mother always said you were greedy."1    Mortimer Duke: "She meant it as a compliment!"s   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:43:56 GMTd9 From: Hein van den Heuvel <hein_netscape@eps.zko.dec.com>cI Subject: Re: OT: Don't use the word BEGIN when sending to Microsoft usersl/ Message-ID: <3F817EE9.81086A20@eps.zko.dec.com>o   Wayne Sewell wrote:p   > >m > >For a good laugh:, > >http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=265230   :   G > This is the funniest damn shit I've ever heard.  I knew billyware waslL > braindead, but in this case the brain is not dead, but completely missing. >mQ > >Microsoft's solution is to use words such as "Commence", or capitalise "Begin"l: > >to make sure that microsoft users can read the message. >uP > That's "solution", all right.   Typical.  Don't fix it, give people a bullshit
 > workaround.f  R And it's not even a solution. In its bs reply reply It only talks to the receiver, buttP it is the unknown, infinitely large body of SENDERs that 'cause' the problem no? No :-).b   ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:25:44 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.ukM Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?o) Message-ID: <blpd5o$nja$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>m  h In article <Ysd2q9KROUC1-pn2-0sO6r2dRfGcd@news.xs4all.nl>, "Rik Steenwinkel" <rsteenw@xs4all.nl> writes:A >On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:00:44 UTC, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:o > Q >} The receiver is in compete control. If it doesn't like something it sends backc, >} a 5xx response and closes the connection. >tG >You mean the receiver as the end-user's MTA. I read Don's protocol as fG >the actual end-user controlling whether the message body gets fetched  A >or not. Although, for offline reading, that functionality being aG >delegated to the receiver's MTA being desirable, probably through somea >whitelist mechanism.  >tE The latest version of Don's proposal clears up a lot of these initialmH misunderstandings. The proposed protocol just operates between "ESP"s - H Don's term - which I take to be the equivalent of organisation's central) mailhubs in the current SMTP environment.B  G This overcomes the problems with NAT and organisation's firewalls which-N would have impacted his protocol if either the sender (because of Don's use of; second connection) or receiver system was a desktop system.a  H This does reduce the possibilities for user control. Hence in a previousM posting I suggested that he needed to provide a mechanism for such control ifm( he were to claim that for his protocol.     
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University l     >-- ? >// Rik Steenwinkel  #  VMS mercenary  #  Enschede, Netherlandse >// 1024D/CDBAE5C1   ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:37:39 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.ukM Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ? ) Message-ID: <blpds3$nja$2@news.mdx.ac.uk>e  \ In article <3F7F68F6.26BD9252@pacbell.net>, Express Designer <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >  >k  >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> eX >> In article <3F79CF7E.20753515@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >> > >> ># >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:c >> >>on >> >> In article <Ysd2q9KROUC1-pn2-tn8Iv2d2WoN9@news.xs4all.nl>, "Rik Steenwinkel" <rsteenw@xs4all.nl> writes:H >> >> >On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:49:54 UTC, david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> >> >  >> >4 >> >By design, because it's an implementation issue. >> > >> eQ >> Like getting mail from a mail store is an implementation issue which is why wee% >> have protocols like POP and IMAP ?l > D >Not the same thing at all, because a protocol describes a method ofF >delivery. A implementation issue is how your particular site uses the
 >protocol.F >POP and IMAP would work as they do today, I would guess, because theyF >just provide a method of transfer for stored emails that have already& >gone through the various validations. >e >> sK >> If you are going to tout this as an advantage of your system you need to O >> provide a mechanism to accomplish it. Saying everything is an implementation  >> issue is a cop out. >iI >Not so. It's just that each domain may have different requirements. SomeiH >may only use a  simple list of parameters, others, a sophisticated ruleC >based system, while others may allow an interactive component. ThenF >protocol provides the rules to follow not how you're going to use it. > H In that case I hereby claim SMTP provide exactly the same user control -. how it does that is an "implementation" issue.  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University       >--  >, >Have VMS, Will Travel >Wire paladin, San Francisco >f >(paladinATalphaseDOTcom)s   ------------------------------  * Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:40:53 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukM Subject: Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?a) Message-ID: <blqdml$4ue$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>b  \ In article <3F7F65AA.5E21FA7C@pacbell.net>, Express Designer <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >g >,  >david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> sX >> In article <3F7B8754.3623EC0F@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >> > >> ># >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:- >> >>s[ >> >> In article <3F79CE46.5E40D800@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:u >> >> >d >> >> > & >> >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> >> >>S >> >> >> In article <blag7c$kfg$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:a_ >> >> >> >In article <3F789087.7B990DE0@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:n >> >> >> >>  >> >> >> >>o* >> >> >> >>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> >> >> >>>a >> >> >> >>> In article <3F74CF7F.9D265CA@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:  >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >- >> >> >> >>> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:s >> >> >> >>> >>sg >> >> >> >>> >> In article <vn5s22g2nrds0e@news.supernews.com>, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:n< >> >> >> >>> >> ><david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message4 >> >> >> >>> >> >news:bkuhsq$dk3$1@news.mdx.ac.uk...H >> >> >> >>> >> >> In article <3F71D664.D92AAC37@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes0 >> >> >> >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >3 >> >> >> >>> >> >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:H >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>rK >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> In article <3F70934A.3C36DD45@pacbell.net>, Don Sykesn0 >> >> >> >>> >> ><anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >n >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> >>rT >> >> The receiver is in compete control. If it doesn't like something it sends back/ >> >> a 5xx response and closes the connection.b >> >C >> >The receiver can set aside accepting an email until a time more-B >> >convenient to them. They're not required to accept mail at theK >> >convinience of the sender. This allows options that are impossible in a.K >> >one phase protocol, like retrieving large or low priority emails during.F >> >slow times and sending a pre-email notification to the user - e.g.L >> >       I have a request from smutpeddler@legitdomain.com, do you want toF >> >accept a 2MB avi file? do you want to charge him? If so, how much?B >> >that sort of thing. A one phase protocol requires a continuous7 >> >interaction until the mail is rejected or accepted.h >> > >>  M >> You are at least one level away from the sender or receiver at the centrallL >> mailhub level. Your default policy is you are going to delay all mail not% >> explicitly requested by the user ?  >h7 >Again. That's up to what the domain (ESP) wants to do.t >rR >> My mail users complain that mail is not instantaneous. They expect it to all beP >> instantaneous. Adding extra delays is not acceptable. Even if a simple methodP >> is supplied for them to update what they want to delay on the central mailhubL >> they won't immediately update it after they get off the phone to that newP >> contact who is going to mail them - that is if they remember to get his email/ >> address rather than just telling him theirs.u >gF >In your situation, you would probably wouldn't delay based on size orB >priority. Adding the 2nd phase could take only an extra couple of	 >seconds.   = You explicitly stated that the second connection was to allows   " ? The receiver can set aside accepting an email until a time mores> convenient to them. They're not required to accept mail at theG convinience of the sender. This allows options that are impossible in aoG one phase protocol, like retrieving large or low priority emails during:; slow times and sending a pre-email notification to the usera "r     Thats not a few seconds delay.  L (As to low priority messages - mailhubs already have facilities to deal withK that. Mail messages can be sent with "urgent","normal" or "low" priorities. I The mailhub's queuing system can be setup to prioritise dealing with suchhM messages. Suprisingly when this is implemented and starts to slow down normald@ mail people have a tendency to send all their mail as "urgent").  H I would think that my "situation" is pretty much the situation of anyoneJ looking after a central mailhub. I'm not in a high pressure organisation - just a University.      I >As for your new customer who just got off the phone with a new customer,nI >he would have told that new customer, "be sure to start the Subject witheG >'NEW123'", a code which he previously set up for all new customers, so : >the receiver ESP will pass it on without charge or delay. >-      O Well if you tell all your friends, colleagues and other mail contacts that then@M you don't need any new protocol to stop spam - a very simple mail filter will " ensure you never receive any spam.      N >> Anyone running a central mailhub will immediately turn off any such delays. >> o >> >>> >> >>:S >> >> >> At the moment there does exist a small possiblity of spoofing however youraA >> >> >> system is exactly as vulnerable as the current standards  >> >> > O >> >> >I don't agree, because in phase 2 the receiver initiates the connection.nO >> >> >So unless the spoofer can control the DNS I don't see how they will every# >> >> >get their message delivered.eN >> >> >And if they can control the DNS, they can jolly well force all of us to5 >> >> >a smut site when we try to http to Google.com.d >> >>aO >> >> Yes as I say a small chance of spoofing which is exactly the same for theuC >> >> current protocol since it can do exactly the same DNS lookup.nS >> >> Since this is at the central mailhub rather than the desktop sender level thepT >> >> chances of anyone wanting to spoof this are pretty remote anyway. Any spoofingG >> >> would be done between the desktop system and the central mailhub.d >> >I >> >Give me an example of what you mean. I don't see it. When the desktopaL >> >user goes to retrieve his mail he logs onto a POP or IMAP server, passesK >> >his userid & password and downloads the mails that are waiting for him.l# >> >Where would the spoofing occur?m >> > >> IO >> I'm talking about in sending the mail from the desktop to the central serverO# >> in order to avoid being charged." >oA >You mean desktop user 'A' will send an email to the sending ESP,:D >pretending to be desktop user 'B'? Why don't you require a userid &. >password? You must have the same problem now. >s >> r  G There is no charging so there is no incentive to go to great lengths too avoid being charged.  G Of course we use userids and passwords to control access to our desktop I systems. What has that got to do with someone being able to spoof so that B mail or other connections appears to come from a different system.K Our logs will show them logged onto machine A. If they then spoof things so H that other machines think they were talking to machine B then it will beO extremely difficult if not impossible to prove that a complaint about machine B - was caused by the user logged into machine A.r  I We are spending an awful lot of money to improve our security logging buts. I have no illusions that it will be foolproof.       >> >>xR >> >> As to controlling the DNS and redirecting to smut sites - yes it happens allQ >> >> the time. Though the preference is usually to redirect to their own version,K >> >> of a companies site so they can gather credit card and other details.a >> >>  >> >> >g >> >> >> - this can be improved P >> >> >> in the future by use of server certificates and SSL/TSL to provide more+ >> >> >> trustworthy mutual authentication.a >> >> >>T >> >> >> The problems of identity are to do with tracking within organisations, withN >> >> >> non-compliant and badly configured mail systems and with open relays.Q >> >> >> These are NOT protocol issues.  Nobody should be running an open-relay -e; >> >> >> there is even an RFC which states this - RFC 2505.  >> >> >eO >> >> >I don't run an open relay and I can't stop the 100's of spams per day ornF >> >> >force anyone to pay if I deliver a spam message to an end user. >> >> >a >> >>iT >> >> But apart from the fee paying idea which won't work unless you really know whoR >> >> to charge the fee to your protocol doesn't provide anything extra which will >> >> control spammers.  >> >3 >> >Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?h$ >> >The fee IS the pertenient point. >> >  E The fee is only pertinent if you have full end to end accountability.        >> >>sN >> >> >I agree that identity problems WITHIN an organisation are not solved byK >> >> >this, but that' by design. IMO all those problems are implementationaK >> >> >issues, ones, I might add, that are just as likely to cause problemsS >> >> >using any protocol. >> >> >  >> >>eU >> >> What I am saying is your protocol is irrelevent. Communications between centralMR >> >> mailhubs are already adequately controlled. It is the injection of spam intoO >> >> the sending central mailhubs and direct sending of mail bypassing centrali& >> >> mailhubs which need controlling. >> >9 >> >How can you bypass the receiving ESP? Example please.  >>  L >> I'm talking abiout the current setup. Not everybody has central mailhubs,R >> not everybody has firewall rules blocking direct sending from desktop machines. >yH >Everybody clearly has a receiving ESP. Bypassing the sending domain ESPF >wouldn't help you in the new protocol. At best you could pass a bogusG >phase 1, but when the receiving mail's ESP went to the sending domain,i >the mail would exist. a >t  M Not every organisation has a single central mailhub. Some organisations allowaL mail to be directly addressed to multiple systems in their domain. Each suchH system may be a multiuser system or a single user's unix workstation etc    J But even if both organisations have a central mailhub. Then a spammer justL needs to get the mail onto his own organisation's central mailhub without itL being traced back to his real login. The message will then be passed betweenJ the two central mailhubs in exactly the same manner whether using your newN protocol or smtp. In either case you would have no trouble in tracing the mail1 back to the first organisation's central mailhub. L In neither case does SMTP or your new protocol provide any means of tracking down the real sender.   J Now you may think that by implementing fees you can force the owner of theM sending central mailhub to improve their security to such an extent that they + can track down who really sent the message.<C I doubt it could be made to work since the charging would be acrossnM international boundaries. However if you wanted to do it I'd say extend ESMTP46 to include charging rather than invent a new protocol.  n  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University       >>   >> >P >> >> Unfortunately even after solving those problems we will still be left withT >> >> open-relays and misconfigured or non-compliant systems. The systems which wereP >> >> being put in place to handle those - blacklists - have been hounded out ofO >> >> existence by court proceedings and latterly by targeted denial of servicen >> >> attacks. >> >>eP >> >> >> I note in passing that your protocol is actually pretty weak on this :- >> >> >>R >> >> >> "The receiving ESP has no obligation to relay messages outside of its own >> >> >> domain" >> >> >fK >> >> >The point of this statement is to clarify that this protocol doesn'tsK >> >> >deal with issues of routing beyond the receiver ESP. If they want tob8 >> >> >route beyond their domain, that's their business. >> >> >t >> >>r; >> >> NO system should ever be configured as an open-relay.d >> >>2 >> >> >>X >> >> >> The only features of your protocol different from current ESMTP implementations >> >> >> are :-h >> >> >>Q >> >> >> 1) Two separate connections  - As stated above this is pretty pointless.e >> >> >lM >> >> >Not at all pointless as I mentioned. Control of the mail receipt is inh! >> >> >the hands of the receiver.  >> >>aQ >> >> Control in the current protocol is in the hands of the receiver without anye# >> >> need for a second connection.l >> >F >> >Partial control in the current protocol. Full control in a 2 phase
 >> >protocol.  >> > >> oL >> I get the impression that your model is the telephone system and dialbackJ >> modems. IP has always had a super charged version of caller-id display.K >> It knows what number called it and can do a lookup in it's equivalent ofr@ >> yellow pages - the DNS - to confirm validity of that address.P >> Dialback gains you nothing - Many companies still use it but the major reason? >> nowadays is so that the Company is paying for the phonecall.  >> i >> >>t >> >> >lU >> >> >> 2) The provision of attachment numbers, sizes and mime types up front beforeo& >> >> >>    the actual data is passed.. >> >> >>    I'm not sure of the point of this. >> >> > J >> >> >The point is to allow the receiver ESP to use this info in decidingN >> >> >whether to accept this message. Maybe a policy is not to accept msword,K >> >> >due to the infection possibilities. Or maybe an organization doesn'tr >> >> >want avi or other video.o >> >> >t/ >> >> >>   Virus writers and Microsoft productsw2 >> >> >>    either lie or ignore this information. >> >> >aM >> >> >Yes, they can, but if you try to launch an msword attachment as an exe.G >> >> >it's not going to work. Mail readers use the MIME info to decidelO >> >> >whether, and how, to launch it. So lying isn't going to get you what youh >> >> >want. >> >> > J >> >> Microsoft products ignore the MIME type they use the file extension.Q >> >> This is why most mailhubs have a large - ever growing - list of banned fileo >> >> extensions.  >> >K >> >That's Microsoft's problem. Maybe they'll be more MIME compliant in the 5 >> >future if they see it's better for them to do so.j >> > >> uL >> No it's your (and everybody elses) problem. Why should Microsoft change ?R >> People have been complaining about Microsoft's attitude to standards for years.I >> But so long as they have a dominent desktop position and can use theirdQ >> tweaking/ignoring of standards to allow them to leverage that for dominence in * >> other areas they aren't likely to stop.J >> Microsoft are standards compliant - it's just it's their version of the >> standard. >> i >> >> + >> >> >> Mime is also not the only encoding W >> >> >>    mechanism used in mail messages - eg uuencoded mail, pgp encrypted mail etc-U >> >> >>    Also since this is at the central mailhub level only organisational levelh1 >> >> >>    checks and blocks can be done anyway.P >> >> >PN >> >> >That depends completely on your implementation. For businesses like HP,O >> >> >they probably would use organizational-wide parameters. AOL on the othersO >> >> >hand will defininately not. They will allow each user to specify all the / >> >> >options for themselves, including price.f >> >> >cU >> >> How ? Your protocol is central mailhub to central mailhub it says nothing abouti8 >> >> any mechanism for a user to request these options. >> >K >> >Of course it doesn't. Why should it? SMTP doesn't tell you to do an RBL > >> >lookup, or to go check a user list when you get a RCPT_TO:D >> >anybody@abc.com. That's up to whoever is implemting the receiverJ >> >service. E.G. HP's TCPIP SMTP Service doesn't even give you the option >> >to check a user's list.k >> >D >> SMTP never touted these as advantages to it's protocol - you are.< >> Hence you need to provide something more than handwaving. > B >I am. That's why I put this idea on my website and then asked forG >comments and suggestions. Even though you disagree with the concept ofy% >pay mail, your comments are helpful.a >  >> lN >> To get people  to buy into your new protocol you need to prove it is betterQ >> than the existing protocols. People have spent a lot of money on systems usinghJ >> the existing protocols - they will need a bl**dy good reason to move to >> something else. v >nI >There is one BIG reason: a billion spam emails a day...maybe 10 billion!o >h9 >> So far I don't see anything which improves on existingn
 >> protocols.s >o
 >We disagree.n >f >> m >> >>r/ >> >> >> I cannot see any reason for wanting to>D >> >> >>    specify individual size blocks for different Mime types. >> >> >iO >> >> >Options. Just because you can't see it now, doesn't mean you won't see amL >> >> >reason for it in the future. The "cost" to provide it is zero, so why >> >> >not give the option.r >> >> >lX >> >> >>    ESMTP can already apply blocks up front for actual size of messages, numbers >> >> >>    of recipients etcc >> >> >>* >> >> >> 3) The provision of fee charging. >> >> >>W >> >> >>    Assuming that 100% identification could be achieved which is a prerequisite $ >> >> >>    for any charging system.V >> >> >>    Firstly the costs per MB or whatever should be up front before any sendingW >> >> >>    of from or recipient addresses. THis could be achieved with ESMP with costsnM >> >> >>    being relayed back to the sender in response to the EHLO command. W >> >> >>    Rather than providing a new protocol the additional commands required for auW >> >> >>    feebased system could be added to ESMTP - thats the whole point of ESMTP itv >> >> >>    is extensible. >> >> >rL >> >> >Unless ESMTP provides that 2nd phase, it's not going to be effective. >> >> >o >> >>pS >> >> As I have said time and time again your second connection provides absolutelyn >> >> nothing. >> > >> >See previous responses.t >> > >> >>r >> >> >>Q >> >> >>    In short I don't see that this protocol provides anything not alreadytU >> >> >>    available in the existing protocols (or which could not be added - in thecT >> >> >>    case of charging). In particular it does not provide any additional help9 >> >> >>    in identifying the sender of a piece of mail.  >> >> >> >> >> >dI >> >> >That's the beauty, I don't have to care who the sender is if I cane& >> >> >collect a fee for receiving it! >> >> >  >> >>tS >> >> Good luck in trying to collect that fee. The lawyers will make a lot of moneyn >> >> I doubt you will.i >> >I >> >I'm not trying to make a lot of money on this. If there is continuing F >> >trouble collecting fees from an ESP they will be marked as such by >> >eosawki.org. >> > >> iL >> Sorry I didn't mean you personally. Just saying that any fee based systemQ >> which doesn't provide full end to end accountability will be open to all sortsa >> of legal challenges.  >> h > I >Ideally, a user to user, guaranteed receipt is the best, but MUCH hardere >to deliver on.oD >Legally, in my model, most ESPs would put in as part of the serviceD >acceptance that paying for an email cannot guarantee the final userH >would get it. They could only guarantee that a user's ESP would get it,5 >but after that of course they couldn't guarantee it.t >/ >. >Have VMS, Will Travel >Wire paladin, San Francisco >- >(paladinATalphaseDOTcom)c   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 03:32:21 -0400c* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com># Subject: Securing "virtual" devices5) Message-ID: <3F811A54.A6B14CD5@istop.com>o  L Ok, think in the context of a VMS host controlling devices such as lights in many rooms.   H If I want user1 to have access to lights 1 2 3 and 4, and user2 only hasK access to light 4, (and so on), what would be the best way to handle this ?e  I One background process controls all devices. Some transactions would comemH either via decnet or ICC. Transaction generated either at DCL prompt, orX perhaps via a web server that would require basic authetication (VMS username/password).  J What are the different ways of implementing security on such onjects whichJ don't really exist on VMS, but which I would like to have VMS-style access  control based on VMS usernames ?  B Is there a way to creater virtual devices to which one would apply ACLs/ownership ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:33:44 GMToL From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")' Subject: Re: Securing "virtual" devices16 Message-ID: <00A26F43.1BD1A3B9@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  V In article <3F811A54.A6B14CD5@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:M >Ok, think in the context of a VMS host controlling devices such as lights inc >many rooms. >0I >If I want user1 to have access to lights 1 2 3 and 4, and user2 only hasdL >access to light 4, (and so on), what would be the best way to handle this ? >0J >One background process controls all devices. Some transactions would comeI >either via decnet or ICC. Transaction generated either at DCL prompt, orwY >perhaps via a web server that would require basic authetication (VMS username/password).a >iK >What are the different ways of implementing security on such onjects whichaK >don't really exist on VMS, but which I would like to have VMS-style accessn! >control based on VMS usernames ?t  G An extremely easy way would be to have each device or group of devices sF represented by a file, with ACL entries per username.  Your backgroundJ process does a sys$check_access with the file as the object, and if accessJ is permitted goes ahead and does the work.  The mapping of the file to the" object occurs within your program.  E Weirder would be to use files which contain a password or token.  TheeI client has to provide the password or token to the background process; itfJ gets that by opening and reading the file for the object.  Again, ACLs perM file, but now the mapping of file to object is in the client, not just in them background process.  l  H You could also have an RMS file or a dbms relation with a structure like  OBJECT-NAME  
  USERNAME   ACCESS-TYPE  I and every permitted access goes in there (one record per access; so you'd 	 get both    GARAGE-OVERHEAD-LIGHT  JFr  TURNONe   and:    GARAGE-OVERHEAD-LIGHT  JFe  TURNOFF  L All those fields would make up the keys; I'd put username first on the key. K When the user requests something you look up in the (possibly fully cached)eK index username-object-access-type, and if it's not there, that access isn'tb
 permitted. ><C >Is there a way to creater virtual devices to which one would applyt >ACLs/ownership ?e  E Would this get you anything more than the file-per-object approach?  r   -- Alan    -- tO ===============================================================================g0  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   94025>O ===============================================================================@   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:58:47 -0400n* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>' Subject: Re: Securing "virtual" devicesc) Message-ID: <3F819135.E53F0F49@istop.com>l  * Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote:J > You could also have an RMS file or a dbms relation with a structure like >  OBJECT-NAME >  USERNAMEp >  ACCESS-TYPE  I Yes. I thought of that. The advantage of such a scheme is that it becomes>J easier to generate a list of devices that a user has access to, as well asL generate the html page that contains only the buttons the user is allowed toM change. But I then lose the "ACL" capabilities, especially if I wish to grant L an identifier to many users which would grant it access to all lights on the first floor.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:08:24 +0200' From: Jean-Luc <r-jl.nospam@wanadoo.fr> 0 Subject: Re: Simple question : foum DCL -> ici ?' Message-ID: <Usenet.hdgofpla@localhost>o   Nicol@s wrote: > H > Salut  tous, j'aimerais de l'aide pour rediger un script DCL servant : >  compiler automatiquement des fichiers Fortran sous VMS > H > O dois-je regarder ??? Existe-t-il un forum dedi ou puis-je poser ma > question ici ? >  > byeu	 > Nicol@sn   Essayes  fr.com.os.vms   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:13:31 +0200' From: Jean-Luc <r-jl.nospam@wanadoo.fr>-0 Subject: Re: Simple question : foum DCL -> ici ?' Message-ID: <Usenet.efskppht@localhost>c   Jean-Luc wrote:i >  > Essayes  fr.com.os.vms   correction : fr.comp.os.vms7   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:19:42 +0200y" From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>0 Subject: Re: Simple question : foum DCL -> ici ?2 Message-ID: <blr52m$9b7$2@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr>   Jean-Luc wrote:0   > Essayes  fr.com.os.vms    Essaie plutt fr.comp.os.vms :-)   D. -- w- Didier Morandi sarl au capital de 8 000 eurose                     Tout VMS.   5 avenue Albert Durand, 31700 Blagnac France.   Tl: 33(0)5 6131 6287  Fax: 33(0)5 6171 3500&           http://www.didiermorandi.com$             RCS Toulouse 448 694 851   ------------------------------  * Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:39:22 +0000 (UTC), From: lewis@PROBE.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) Subject: Re: SMTP receiver logs2. Message-ID: <bls2ba$34r$1@newslocal.mitre.org>  l sms@antinode.org writes in article <03100320423315@antinode.org> dated Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:42:33 -0500 (CDT):F >      Or specify each value as a separate instance of same field. For >      example:  >v0 >      Field1: Item1 Field1: Item2 Field1: Item3 >e! >      An alternative format is:   >u" >      Field1: Item1, Item2, Item3 >,H >and neither of those suggests multiple lines of "Feild1" values to me.  >(I'm looking atL >"http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/73final/6526/6526pro_031.html#index_x_716".)  H The way I read that, the space before Field1: can be any whitespace, not' just " ".  Which means newlines are OK.l  + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.orgt> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 07:25:12 GMT / From: "Dave Weatherall" <djweath@attglobal.net>u Subject: Re: Sun takes a hit5 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-c5dwOb0jrTe5@localhost>f  F On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 08:32:01 UTC, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>  wrote:   > Keith Parris wrote:- > > j > > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote in message news:<POztxxIPltF8@eisner.encompasserve.org>...: > > >       It isn't starting to set, it has been setting. > > ? > > TheStreet.com says It's been a very, very bad week for Sun. @ > > http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/kcswanson/10117341.html > > 4 > > Motley Fool says it's been Sun's Nightmare Week.p > > http://www.fool.com/news/mft/2003/mft03100317.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y&bounce=y&bounce2=y > > C > > "On Monday, the computer maker issued an earnings warning while I > > tacking on a $1.05 billion charge to last quarter. Yesterday, MerrilltD > > Lynch analyst Steve Milunovich sent a hostile open letter to theD > > company's board stating that 'Sun faces a crisis.' And now this:C > > Friday morning, Hewlett Packard announced that it would pay Sunp@ > > customers $25,000 to switch to HP computers running Linux OS > > freeware." > B > But this is something I don't get. Why is HP pushing Linux as anH > alternative to Solaris rather than HP-UX, or even, heaven forbid, VMS? > A > Why not give those away and go for the software maintenance andt > consulting revenue?' > 
 > ???????? > 4 > It all sounds like dot com boom economics to me... > I > Come on Keith, we know you aren't daft. Please explain the economics ofe > this one.o   HI Paulu=                have you read this month's C'T yet? Stiller's tD Prozessorgefluester (Processor News) talks about Sun actively going E after Dell and HP's server sales and making an attack on Microsoft's  E Desktop pitch. The latter with a Suse Linux variant. The question is e who is pre-empting whom?   -- s Cheers - Dave.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:55:56 GMTn# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>c Subject: Re: Sun takes a hitJ Message-ID: <0ofgb.123758$3r1.118749@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   Paul Sture wrote:c > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >>> >> In article <3F7FF321.64F09CCE@sture.homeip.net>, Paul Sture$ >> <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes: >>6 >>> It all sounds like dot com boom economics to me... >>>a> >>> Come on Keith, we know you aren't daft. Please explain the >>> economics of this one. >>G >> On non-technical posts, I am under the impression that Keith is justrG >> making us aware of material from others that he learns about.  KeithlG >> can speak authoritatively about technical details of VMS, but on the A >> economics questions you ask he is not operating those circles.  >t > Understood Larry.t > H > But it still does not stop me from criticising HP when I feel they are > not doing it quite right.- >- > To Keith:  >e> > Apologies are due here to Keith. I do not seek to attack youD > personally (very much the opposite in fact), but please understandA > that when you post HP advertising blurb, you are bound to get aa > little flack.U    + Use these addresses to voice your concerns:n  @ richard.marcello@REMOVETHIShp.com, mark.gorham@REMOVETHIShp.com,A Carly Fiorina external_ceo-communication@REMOVETHISam.exch.hp.com    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:58:16 GMTn# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>a Subject: Re: Sun takes a hitH Message-ID: <cqfgb.123778$3r1.6890@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   Rob Young wrote:4 > In article <3F80B824.F46CCFE1@istop.com>, JF Mezei% > <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:d >> Rob Young wrote:AF >>>         you're going to switch Unixes , doesn't make much sense to@ >>>         move to a Unix that isn't Linux and isn't running on >>> commodity hardware.e >>D >> If you're being forced to migrate your VMS infrastructure to that >> IA64 thing,A >> it doesn't make sense to migrate to an expensive non-commodityv@ >> hardware/software especially when the IA64 future is clouded. >> >e@ > Not as clouded as SPARC's future.  A dying competitor to IA64.    I Rob, remind me how many IA-64 systems shipped last year and what the real @ forecast is for shipments this year. What are Sun's comparables?   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Oct 2003 10:51:36 -0500e+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)m Subject: Re: Sun takes a hit3 Message-ID: <5DbD7SvsqgCc@eisner.encompasserve.org>   n In article <cqfgb.123778$3r1.6890@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:5 >> In article <3F80B824.F46CCFE1@istop.com>, JF Mezei & >> <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: >>> Rob Young wrote:G >>>>         you're going to switch Unixes , doesn't make much sense to$A >>>>         move to a Unix that isn't Linux and isn't running onx >>>> commodity hardware. >>>lE >>> If you're being forced to migrate your VMS infrastructure to thatr >>> IA64 thing,0B >>> it doesn't make sense to migrate to an expensive non-commodityA >>> hardware/software especially when the IA64 future is clouded.c >>>s >>A >> Not as clouded as SPARC's future.  A dying competitor to IA64.@ >  > K > Rob, remind me how many IA-64 systems shipped last year and what the real B > forecast is for shipments this year. What are Sun's comparables? >   = 	SPARC growth rate is negative, has been for a while.  We seep< 	a flurry of reports, including several about Sun in crisis,: 	etc.  and recent downgrades, Wall Street analysts writing: 	open letters to Sun urging something be done.  As this is" 	all a surprise.  Yet end of July:  c http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bybJ6pVnhmln%40eisner.encompasserve.org&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain   A 	Sun is shrinking itself out of existence.  Sun did $18.2 billion ; 	in sales year ending June 2001.  Sun did ~$12.5 billion inu= 	sales year ending June 2002.  An amazing growth rate of -32%a	 	in revs.t  ? 	Sun is doing very poorly as has been rehashed here in the lasti? 	2 weeks.  Declining revenues for 9 straight quarters (and yes,fD 	we now know what view to take when comparing quarters).  Sun hasn't0 	grown revenues at all in the last 9 quarters.     ---r  C 	Sun is dying.  Itanium is getting started.  Compare the two a yearsC 	from now, and two years from now.  You can be assured that Itanium F 	will be growing far faster than Sun and Sun will *still* be shrinking; 	(if it exists at all, i.e. isn't taken over).  Speaking ofe= 	taking over ... read a recent analysis.  When Sun was flyinglB 	high 4-5 years ago, they had a market cap of $200 billion.  Today= 	it is around $10 billion and they have $5 billion of cash on0= 	hand.  A hostile takeover would be a very timely event about:4 	now, that sure is a nice pot of gold Sun has there.   				Roba   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:18:06 +01007O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>0 Subject: Re: Sun takes a hit0 Message-ID: <bls4jv$4h2$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:` > In article <vnppv12drd8vef@corp.supernews.com>, "Dave Gudewicz" <k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net> writes: > M >>Permit me to rephrase.  I certainly don't know, but it appears that the sund >>is starting to set.d >  >  > A > 	It isn't starting to set, it has been setting.  What cracks mex@ > 	up is the recent downgrades.  As if there was a big surprise. > G > 	I've been saying for a few years - the only place they are going is >C > 	down.  It is a Dell/Windows and Linux effect.  Sparc/Solaris is  A > 	proprietary and moribound.  The VAX/VMS of the 21st century.  >E > 	They'll breath life into it by ditching SPARC and the overhead of >J > 	maintaining that infrastructure.  It's staring Scotty in the face, but $ > 	it is hard to abandon your baby.  >  >   ; Give it a rest Rob you have been spouting this CR*P for the>: last 4-5 years and along with the rest of your predictions5 which started with Alpha will last for ever if hasn't> come true yet.  6 In the same period Alpha has been axed, Compaq sold to3 HP, Alpha engineers left (who do you think has been> designing Ultra V)  0 Now the division of the company that you need to1 stay operating because it produces the OS and kitF2 that your moon appears to revolve around is losing/ ~ 1 billion a year off its bottom line, and you>/ are excited about Sun taking a 1 billion dolalr> accounting charge.  0 To cap it all we now have rumours that Intel are/ being forced to adopt x86-64 by MS for Prescottc, which will if true be the end of Itanium and, the end of HP's Enterprise Systems division.  0 I would suggest that you spend a whole load less1 time sicking up boring rehashes of your origionale2 predictions about Sun and more time worrying about1 the death of Itanium which Sun isn't involved in.p  1 It would appear that whatever has happened in thep- last 5 years it hasn't altered you ability to  not see the wood for the trees.d   Regardso Andrew Harrisonw   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:17:43 +0200c" From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>2 Subject: Re: Transfer speed over Ethernet and ADSL2 Message-ID: <blr4uv$9b7$1@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr>  H Well Paul, thanks, but the file is a 1.9 Go / 5 hours movie on my son's E scout camp (rushes only) and I do not see how you could burn such CD.l  I No, what I need is to purchase FinalCutPro and "make" the movie (because wG iMovie is too "lite"), then burn a DVD as soon as I have inuf money to i buy a PC with a DVD burner :-)   Merci beaucoup.>   D.   Paul Sture wrote:a  * > Want me to burn some CDs for you Didier?9 > Or have an account on my system, with better bandwidth?e   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 03:37:26 -0400g* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>2 Subject: Re: Transfer speed over Ethernet and ADSL) Message-ID: <3F811B85.6A483E68@istop.com>    Didier Morandi wrote: I > Well Paul, thanks, but the file is a 1.9 Go / 5 hours movie on my son'siG > scout camp (rushes only) and I do not see how you could burn such CD.    DVDs handle some 5 gigs.  J > No, what I need is to purchase FinalCutPro and "make" the movie (becauseH > iMovie is too "lite"), then burn a DVD as soon as I have inuf money to  > buy a PC with a DVD burner :-)  J Are you using any compression for the movie or is it just raw capture fromK video without any compression ? If iMovie doesn't come with any compressingnR codecs, perhaps you could try to zip the file (of stuffit in a macintosh context).  J still, if you let it run all night, it should have no problem downloading.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:37:54 +0200s" From: Jeison <acanom@iberdrola.es>' Subject: Unrecognized printer with DCPSh8 Message-ID: <rl23ov080o1q0ma04414th49bfc5ijrepc@4ax.com>   Hi!o  C I've some problems with DCPS ( dec print supervisor ) and a toshibau printer model e-studio45.hE DCPS does not recognize this printer and when i try to print there is % an error such a DCPS-F-CONTERMINATED.e  @ i've try to edit the text library where are included the startup5 modules of the unreconized printers but does't works.   A Does anyboy knows how to modify these modules to make the printerw works.  , There is any link to obtain some information thanks   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:17:04 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>+ Subject: Re: Unrecognized printer with DCPS@) Message-ID: <3F81957E.ACBB2D28@istop.com>p  
 Jeison wrote:eC > Does anyboy knows how to modify these modules to make the printern > works.  F Try to trace the dialogue between DCPS and the printer. Prior to a jobN starting, DCPS sends stuff to the printer, such as interrogating it on currentL page count (which it does after the job too, to count the pages printed). ByK looking at the dialogue, you will find out which request from DCPS fails toeH generate the right response, and you can then modify the setup module to& redefine the command that DCPS issues.    J For instance, you could define a command that responds with "a" page countH (lets say 1000) and then update the page count by 10. So next time it isM called it will output a number , always telling DCPS it has printed 10 pages.t$ Wouldn't be accurate but would work.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:03:50 +0200( From: "John Apps" <john.apps@compaq.com>; Subject: Re: VMS JVM implementation of sub-process deletiont* Message-ID: <3f817791@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  G > 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 a F > 'Process.destroy()' would be implemented by a $DELPRC call, but this > does not seem to be the case.d  I I'm afraid you are correct when stating that the C RTL is 'inconsistent'.lL This is the 'featyure' I alluded to and wha the C RTL group is going to take  a look at and make 'consistent'.   John -- rL This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individualL to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those ofJ the author and do not necessarily represent those of Compaq Computer GmbH.H If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have receivedJ this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,0 or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  < "Ken Randell" <kenneth.randell@verizon.net> wrote in message7 news:79de9693.0310011457.340a14be@posting.google.com...o1 > "John Apps" <john.apps@hp.com> wrote in messagee& news:<3f79b356@usenet01.boi.hp.com>... >n > <snip> >a7 > > I checked this with some folks and their reply was:f > >iH > > # 1 appears to be a "feature" of the CRTL. I have notified the folksI > > there and they are looking into it. Hope to hear back from them soon.o > >r< > > # 2 appears to be the "way it should work". For example: > > $ type t.com > > $spawn/nowait @t1o > > $ wait 00:00:05i" > > $ write sys$Output "waiting 5"
 > > $ exit > >  > > $ type t1.come > > $!spawn/nowait @t1 > > $ wait 00:00:10e# > > $ write sys$Output "waiting 10"t
 > > $ exit > > $spawn/nowait @t. > > %DCL-S-SPAWNED, process SYSTEM 137 spawned: > > $ %DCL-S-SPAWNED, process SYSTEM 178 spawned waiting 5C > > SECURE::SYSTEM 08:57:48 (DCL) CPU=00:00:38.22 PF=12630 IO=84078u > > MEM=171a > > $ E > > ^^^^^See waiting 10 never appeared, the child was stop along withg > > SYSTEM 137 > >>K > > Not sure if the above helps a great deal? Let's take this offline if it>
 > > does not!eG > > One quick (inevitable) question: have you tried this with any other> > > versions of VMS and Java?t >tD > I'll attempt this with the field test version of 7.3-2 and/or JAVA: > 1.4.1-2 and see what I get.  Thanks for the information. >pG > The above mentioned 'feature' of the C RTL seems at best inconsistentu? > to me.  As I said earlier, it would seem logical to me that alF > 'Process.destroy()' would be implemented by a $DELPRC call, but this > does not seem to be the case.t   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:13:26 -07006 From: "Doc.Cypher" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>" Subject: Re: VMS system on the web6 Message-ID: <200310060713.h967DQrp026403@www.aarg.net>  @ On Mon, 06 Oct 2003, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> wrote: >Doc.Cypher wrote: >> e >> all we're missing is CMSa >iG >I shall see if I can dig a kit up for you. I assume youe want both VAX 2 >and Alpha, so that might take a little more time. > 4 >Not sure I can go back to a pre 7.3 version though.  M I have a 7.3 version here, Beave does plan to upgrade but finding the time is L the tricky part.  He may be closer to the cluster than me but he's still a 2 hour drive away from it.     Doc. -- eK OpenVMS.         Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.tK [PGP Key via finger]     http://openvms-rocks.com     http://vmsbox.cjb.nete   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:41:28 -0400+ From: "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com>iX Subject: Re: worries about files opened by audit server and security server on  shutdown9 Message-ID: <bls2f9$f1vms$1@ID-118202.news.uni-berlin.de>b  [ "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:3F8095E8.6518DA26@istop.com... 1 : Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: O : > > I had the same problem with a user drive containing a page file which youi; : > > cannot dismount since the page file is always opened.u : >y" : > How did you solve the problem? :n :c, : Was told to live with it :=) (not solved).  7 What about using the dismount option /policy=minicopy ?n   DISMOUNT   /POLICY'  . /POLICY=[NO]MINICOPY[=(OPTIONAL)] (Alpha only)  > Controls the setup and use of the shadowing minicopy function.  @ The exact meaning of the MINICOPY keyword depends on the context  $ of the DISMOUNT command, as follows:  ? 1. If this is a dismount of a single member from a multi-memberi  9 shadow set, a write bitmap is created to track all writes   ; to the shadow set. This write bitmap may be used at a later   : time to return the removed member to the shadow set with a  	 minicopy.e  7 If the write bitmap cannot be initiated and the keyword   9 OPTIONAL is not specified, the dismount will fail and thea   member will not be removed.t  3 If you omit the /POLICY qualifier or if you specifya  . /POLICY=NOMINICOPY, no bitmap will be created.  9 2. If this is the final dismount of the shadow set in thew  = cluster, the shadow set is verified to be capable of a futured   minicopy operation.   = If the shadow set has only one member or is in a merge state,   : and if OPTIONAL was not specified, the dismount will fail.  9 Specifying neither NOMINICOPY nor MINICOPY is the same asn  > MINICOPY=OPTIONAL, as the set will be dismounted regardless of   the prior checks.   9 For additional information, refer to Volume Shadowing forc   OpenVMS.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.554 ************************his :- >> >> >>R >> >> >> "The receiving ESP has no obligation to relay messages outside of its own >> >> >> domain" >> >> >fK >> >> >The point of this statement is to clarify that this protocol doesn'tsK >> >> >deal with issues of routing beyond the receiver ESP. If they want tob8 >> >> >route beyond their domain, that's their business. >> >> >t >> >>r; >> >> NO system should ever be configured as an open-relay.d >> >>2 >> >> >>X >> >> >> The only features of your protocol different from curIQNraOn3gJPqmu/ELlxVlTQleRvojiVMxk9hZti2viL b9mqeMsuUBu0XgCbE2WU9yYFu7Q7NqYTGIgSxAGNoOfSdQRMrsjOovParOmhash0SGmTuieiNimQL sjQajBCMpQVZCRHItPZ6qKXIanplLKDnWkImEwqI/qrbVd2KkJkVT2v+WIOBeKgtat2ijNfoU8wuL KfFSnDdOR+oLThz8iuOlJ6GeKniAncJ5hEAoe7oeCHsiWVPOgFLAlN/2d2kcqeIsoYGTtZVlGitVL Bk/bnaVeq8HSKj7NGWFTnrPvNdlte8JgiehuO1ye4Avkil9116Mn3/mIt6J2VLzCY2P4Hh0VbwxWL h0OAKL/JrPOjYVEUvojy8stYmIoXjUIEvKwmi8pCUIYKw7F800ud1yfk1bAoTyXRjjQFsjsY1/5QL XXBVWxPtKVdN+6qg7BR0TZRRtzqE3S++4fOnf/FFFu9jnTFcjgkwASaQcQIQZc7i/aTUx0b9EKs3L 1L+tr2t957HH24883Lz7a4f3fqft8EOdLU/3dr48MgR5C3ontcMFmAATYAJMgAlMZQIgzMNPTHj3L d2+En57whh+j8MMU3i0Hfww/W/Hdeugn8KMW3/CTV7/hZ7F+T2WMhdr33t79hw69sHfPb4YGWwu1L j9wvJsAEmAATYAJMgAkwgQwQ8Fiysas5FE1RUCSVXpYQOiepkFYNpYdqTVGW1LKl+EaKLIW9ujtnL J8MXx5a6KjKEW/o2SvGyPon6yha1EE3AhvqQUh57QvKmsSkVX6lmq86SLGrL6iR4ywh7JQbDVuD2L S26YbdYI6Ohfe+EAlSdeKOtiX5xEIiR4IkiatC6PEc76q9aGnfWxd0bHlVdR4davKC2qYljGKutwL mIwIc0qG18ssiKBUdnUnZTHiSSfNeg1XS06ZX46eWtyBl0wXqAHn5FRD6JjJDtw06Hrs3UsZIscGL QaiVEAqlOWlA6VuAKBMHvTZADwHC1/NcrzZQ9Qx86i8t