0 INFO-VAX	Wed, 04 Feb 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 68      Contents: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem ) Re: Adding internal disks to ES40 Model 2 + Alpha 1200 SCSI shelf configuration problem  Re: AlphaServer 2100 Re: AlphaServer 2100 Books written about OpenVMS 2 Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP?0 Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work? Re: Hobbyist questions? ) Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT? ) RE: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT? P Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! Re: J F's Victim Complex+ Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting) + Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting)  More domain theft from J F Re: More domain theft from J F% Re: More M/e/z/e/i abuse - nobody.org  Re: MyDoom.B Re: MyDoom.BK Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response! K Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response! K Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  snowy squirrel0 Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?"4 Re: Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?" Status of Older Layered Prods ! Re: Status of Older Layered Prods  Re: stupid smtp/mapi question  Re: stupid smtp/mapi question  Re: stupid smtp/mapi question : Re: Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100): Re: Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100): Re: Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100)! Re: VMS runs well on HP Superdome  Why was VAX abandonned ? RE: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?3 www.pi-net.dyndns.org and vmspython.dyndns.org down   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:22:27 -0600 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com> $ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem3 Message-ID: <40201112.2D7A430B@applied-synergy.com>    Chris Sharman wrote: >  > Chris Scheers wrote:J > > "Normally", logical names are checked for in the tables: PROCESS, JOB,! > > GROUP, SYSTEM, in that order.  > > : > > LNM$FILE_DEV is the logical which controls this order. > > I > > You can redefine it in your LNM$PROCESS_DIRECTORY table to change the  > > order used by your process.  > > K > > The trick is that the executive mode definition of LNM$FILE_DEV says to K > > only look in the SYSTEM table, so process logicals have no affect on an $ > > executive mode name translation. > F > Not true on my systems: the two (system) definitions of lnm$file_dev@ > differ only in their inclusion (or not) of decw$logical_names.% > This is in a vms 7.3 Alpha cluster. K > On our standalone Alpha 7.3 system (no decwindows) there's no difference.    Oops.  You are correct.   E Looking at my systems, I see the executive definition of LNM$FILE_DEV 2 only including the SYSTEM table up through VMS 6.1  B With VMS 6.2 and later, the executive definition also includes the PROCESS, JOB, and GROUP tables.   4 So this behavior is sensitive to the version of VMS.  G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 13:53:35 -0800 7 From: jones.computer.srv@worldnet.att.net (Daryl Jones) 2 Subject: Re: Adding internal disks to ES40 Model 2= Message-ID: <8a646952.0402031353.320b42b9@posting.google.com>   i svieth@wi.rr.com (Scott Vieth) wrote in message news:<5a85bce2.0402021231.371adc57@posting.google.com>...  > All: > F > I would like to add an internal disk cage (BA610-6D) to my ES40 so IE > can have some "local" disk storage in addition to the connection to 
 > our EVA. > G > I have been looking through the Golden Eggs and the ES40 Quickspecs.  F > There seems to be a few options for SCSI controllers that could work# > in an ES40 running OpenVMS 7.3-1.  > E > Does anyone have recommendations for which SCSI controller I should A > use in my ES40?  I'd like to do some controller-based mirroring H > (especially if I could get write-back caching!) but I would settle for> > a "dumb" controller and then use VolShad or host-based RAID. > + > Any suggestions/info greatly appreciated.  > 	 > thanks, 6 > -Scott, SCSI plumber in the snowy/frozen Midwest :^)   Dear Scott Vieth:   = On a ES40 running VMS 7.2-1, I had two local disks shadow via B controller. As what hardware and etc. I don't know because I am noB longer working on that site anymore.  I was hoping some else would# provide you with the detail by now.    Regards, Daryl Jones    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:08:51 -0500* From: "Chris Moore" <moore_mc@hotmail.com>4 Subject: Alpha 1200 SCSI shelf configuration problem2 Message-ID: <8lSTb.14576$Ja2.91434@nnrp1.uunet.ca>  J I have come upon an Alphaserver 1200 5/533 that only 'sees' the top 3 SCSIL drives in the cabinet shelf.  What little documentation I can find refers toL the fact that this model has a "split shelf", so that the bottom 3 slots canG be connected to a 2nd controller (which this system does not have).  It B seemed to imply that this could be changed to a full shelf, singleB controller configuration, but I can't find any reference on how to connect/jumper this to happen.  4 Any and all assistance would be GREATLY appreciated.   Chris Moore    --E "The opinions expressed herein are almost NEVER those of my employer"    ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:04:55 +0000 (UTC)2 From: never+mail@panix.com.invalid (Michael Roach) Subject: Re: AlphaServer 2100 , Message-ID: <bvout7$oa9$1@reader2.panix.com>  I In article <13t1f1-slq.ln1@deep.bit.bucket>, BAH  <BAH@bit.bucket> wrote: Q >On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:26:59 -0500, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> Wrote :  >  ><snip>  >>N >> I think it would make for a very popular picture if a 2100 were attached to% >> the belly of mr Henderson's plane.  > J >It'd make a better one if there was a formation of C-182's ( a GREAT jump  G Now you've done it; I can't get the image of swallows carrying coconuts  out of my head.  --  F I am so optimistic about beef prices that I've just leased a pot roast with an option to buy.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:29:18 +1100  From: HUMBUG <humbug@bit.bucket> Subject: Re: AlphaServer 2100 , Message-ID: <u026f1-ih6.ln1@deep.bit.bucket>  M On Tue, 03 Feb 04 12:00:52 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com <jmfbahciv@aol.com> Wrote : J > In article <13t1f1-slq.ln1@deep.bit.bucket>, BAH <bah@bit.bucket> wrote: ><snip>  >  > This isn't me.   >   G Whoops, sorry - I thought I was on safe ground. It's (hopefully) fixed.      > /BAH > ) > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.      --     Humbug   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 14:15:34 -0800 1 From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) $ Subject: Books written about OpenVMS= Message-ID: <857e9e41.0402031415.7f60cd61@posting.google.com>    Dear Newsgroup,   A I have been named as the VMS contact for Digital Press books (VMS B only).  If you have a minute could you please fill out a survey onD OpenVMS books on openvms.org, that way we can work on books that you want.   
 Warm Regards,  Sue    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 06:39:13 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>; Subject: Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? - Message-ID: <87ptcxnm26.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   / Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:   ^ > In article <87oesjh28z.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes: > @ >> The interesting thaing, is IBM have pulled back in a big way, >  > What do you mean by that ?  ? There was a big iSCSI bakeoff recently. Report was that IBM had ? not shown, and had pulled back from all iSCSI stuff. No reasons  or insight given though.   --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:00:49 +0000 (UTC)* From: bleau@umtof.umd.edu (Lawrence Bleau)9 Subject: Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work? 0 Message-ID: <bvp261$nv4$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>  G Hello, I'm back.  I posted about an SSH problem, and I have more data.  D To recap: I'm running OpenVMS AXP V7.3-2, TCPIP V5.4, and I'm trying to use scp to copy a text file.   C Previously, another poster replied that scp only works on stream_lf F files, so I used CONVERT/FDL to copy a simple text file (my LOGIN.COM)? to stream_lf format.  I then tried copying the file onto my own A system, figuring that at least VMS's SSH would be compatible with E itself.  It is, but my user is still getting errors trying to copy it B to his Mac.  It starts up okay, prompts for his password, but then7 after he enters it scp hangs and can't be killed by ^C.    Any suggestions here?   E I checked the patch list, and there aren't any patches listed for VMS N V7.3-2 at all.  Does anyone know if a patch is in the works for the SSL tools?  C Btw, I can post a verbose trace of my users's scp session if anyone 	 wants it.    Lawrence Bleau University of Maryland" Physics Dept., Space Physics Group 301-405-6223 bleau@umtof.umd.edu    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:39:29 -0600 / From: Clay M. Denton <denton@orison.dsserv.com>   Subject: Re: Hobbyist questions?8 Message-ID: <vk1020907bp6g947228kbt1rhesu9e9s6s@4ax.com>  6 Encompass and Interex are VERY separate organizations.   Clay Denton  Director Encompass US, Inc.  G On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:59:08 +0100, Didier Morandi <no@spam.com> wrote:   , >Jim, Encompass and Interex is the same org. >  >D.  >  >Jim Becker wrote: > a >> Didier Morandi <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:<401cb2af$0$32630$626a54ce@news.free.fr>...  >>   >>  T >>>You don't exactly need to "register with HP", you need to be a registered member D >>>of a HP users group to be eligible to get anything from Montagar. >>> Q >>>Today, you have two choices. Either join HP Interex, the DEC/Compaq/Tandem/HP  R >>>USers Group, http://www.hp-interex.org/, or VAXUS, a new VAX/VMS Users Society T >>>recently created, which mainly focuses on VMS, http://www.vaxus.org/index_en.htm. >>  	 >> [snip]  >>  D >> I don't know how you conclude there are only two choices. See the >> Hobbyist site: G >> http://www.openvmshobbyist.com/get_yer_licenses/join_user_group.html  >>  E >> Encompass offers a free Associate status, which is one of the user A >> group affiliations that can get you into the Hobbyist program.  >>   >> -- 
 >> Jim Becker . >> The Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/)* >> Encompass (http://www.encompassus.org/)1 >> ESILUG (http://encompasserve.org/lugs/esilug/)    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 11:37:34 -0800  From: mb301@hotmail.com (MB)2 Subject: Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT?= Message-ID: <1d08b916.0402031137.7ef9e8d5@posting.google.com>   ^ hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) wrote in message news:<MtATb.13595$is3.2163@news.cpqcorp.net>...^ > In article <1d08b916.0402020619.678a1984@posting.google.com>, mb301@hotmail.com (MB) writes: > @ >   Could you provide some background or additional information? > E > :Could anyone tell me how many BPI does a quantum DLT7000 WRITE AT?  > E >   Bits Per Inch is something I haven't seen referenced in a while,  F >   given that DLT drives record their tracks in a serpentine fashion.F >   (Disks can do similarly "odd" things with bit widths depending on G >   where on the disk you are writing, so the rating has largely died.) H >   The DLT drives write in one direction, reverse, and continue writingE >   back toward the front of the tape, reverse, and...  Depending on  C >   the particular DLT technology, the specific drives will support B >   differing numbers of tracks, as well as differing densities... > F > :Using a sony DLTtape IV in compaction mode and non-compaction mode? > B >   (I assume you know that the Sony DLT drive is not supported byB >   OpenVMS, and that you have seen the section of the OpenVMS FAQ$ >   on third-party storage devices.) > J >   The usual approach would be to divide the tape length by the capacity,G >   but usually only the uncompressed capacity -- and also usually also F >   the effective compression for the particular data -- is of central> >   interest.  Some data compresses nicely, and some does not. > F >   In addition to the background on the question, the OpenVMS releaseI >   may also be of some interest -- depending on the particular question, H >   that is.  (There are OpenVMS releases which might not recognize thatG >   compression is available, and it is certainly easy to forget to add K >   /MEDIA_FORMAT=COMPACTION on all the DCL commands that can be involved.)  > G >   Within the TZ8x series' use of DLT IV media, the media has a native I >   capacity of 20, 35 and 40 gigabytes, respectively and the typical DLT H >   compaction rating is double the uncompressed data IIRC.  Also IIRC, F >   the Compaq DLT7000 series featured a 35 GB native capacity rating. > F >   I don't know the length of the DLT IV tape media off-hand, meaningD >   I'm not able to calculate the BPI for you.  (The per-track value. >   or the aggregate value across all tracks.) >  > P >  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------M >     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq P >  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G >         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    Stephen,  . I am using Rdb(7.0) and trying to do a backup.   RMU70    Backup
      Database        Format         Density               Density=number F              Specifies the density at which the output volume is to beN              written. The default value is the format of the first volume (theM              first tape you mount). You do not need to specify this qualifier N              unless your tape drives support data compression or more than one              recording density. L              The Density qualifier is applicable only to tape drives. OracleK              RMU returns an error message if this qualifier is used and the /              target device is not a tape drive.   6              Specify the Density qualifier as follows:  L              o  For TA90E, TA91, and TA92 tape drives, specify the number in)                 bits per inch as follows:   G                 -  Density = 70000 to initialize and write tapes in the $                    compacted format.  J                 -  Density = 39872 or Density = 40000 for the noncompacted                    format.  G              o  For SCSI (Small Computer System Interface) tape drives, J                 specify Density = 1 to initialize and write tapes by using=                 the drive's hardware data compression scheme.   L I have init the tape "Sony DLTtape iv tape " with /media=compaction but rdb  seems to ignore it.   0 Any ideas what value "/density=??" I should try?   Regards  Mark   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:10:14 -0700B From: "Tillman, Brian (AGRE)" <Brian.Tillman@smiths-aerospace.com>2 Subject: RE: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT?O Message-ID: <11721EF39C7D7F47A55447158274CAF79A39C9@cossmgmbx01.email.corp.tld>   	 MB wrote:   0 > I am using Rdb(7.0) and trying to do a backup.	 ..snip... 3 > I have init the tape "Sony DLTtape iv tape " with  > /media=3Dcompaction but rdb  > seems to ignore it.   C Don't use any density.  As you say, INIT it at the VMS level.  Once E inited, mounts will default to the initialized values.  You shouldn't 0 have to tell Rdb explicitly what the density is. --=0D  Brian Tillman        =0D Smiths Aerospace 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991 > Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain.	       =0D : I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me.  * ******************************************G The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain= D  confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the=G  individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject to= H  legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you should=H  notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from=L  your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for any=F  purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or=I  opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do= G  not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient should= I  check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  The= A  company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or= 4  indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.* ******************************************   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 21:48:52 -0800 ' From: icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson) Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu = Message-ID: <734da31c.0402032148.6057092e@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvokl9$hm8$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > David Svensson wrote:  > F > > Funny, that you as usual don't understand, Excel was an example, IH > > also think Itanium is a server platform, but I just pointed out thatB > > IA32-EL was pretty good. But that is something you can't standI > > apparently. In a server it is good to know that you from time to time 9 > > can run user applications too, especially on Windows.  > >  > ? > Excel was just the kind of app that should do ok with IA32-EL = > its an interactive application, you spend more time looking ? > at it and thinking than it spends working and it runs fine on  > 200-300 Mhz Pentium boxes. > > > That said, realtime updates, large worksheets lots of macros; > complex recalc and you will want a faster system but that ? > wasn't what you did was it, you loaded Excel looked at it and ; > went hey thats cool, opened a file, saved a file and said # > thats cool again and that was it.   A I don't know how you can know what I was doing. I sometimes use a F Itanium workstation and I used Excel in a more advanced ways than justD opens and save a file. Anyway, Excel was just an example, there wereB lots of applications that were much more pleasant to work with now  than with the hardware emulator.  < > Currently there are only 4 of the ~300 Oracle applications: > certified for HP-UX/Linux Itanium, do you honestly think9 > that say the DW/DM components are going to work well on  > IA32-EL ?   8 I don't know what Oracle has to do with this discussion.) Whether they will work well I don't know.   8 > And does it matter if Oracle won't support it anyway ?   Yes, probably.  8 > Without performance and without ISV support IA32-EL is8 > destined to become another FX!32 except that FX!32 was > quite quick.  5 As far as I see the EA32-EL is just as fast as FX!32.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:29:57 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>C Subject: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! 2 Message-ID: <xrudnV-vQeoij73dRVn-hA@metrocast.net>  4 "David Svensson" <icerq4a@spray.se> wrote in message7 news:734da31c.0402030903.1ea2b572@posting.google.com...    ...   F > OK, then I understand you a little better, and I agree the AlphacideH > was not a good thing, but I don't think everyone takes it at seriously > as you do. ;)   H Without doubt not - a lot of people don't seem to object to being strungI along and then lied to nearly as much as I do (leaving aside questions of H technical merit and willingness to compete, not that they aren't serious issues as well).  9  I do think however that Intel could go along without the E > Alpha team, Intel has the engineering capacity, and even though the H > Alpha team was great, there emerge new people too, which can be great.? > The future of CPU engineering does not have to rely on Alpha.   I The future of Itanic engineering at Intel appears to rely *solely* on the K Alpha team.  If Intel had had *anything* worthwhile of their own for Itanic L in the oven 3 years ago, we'd have heard something about it (actually, quite# likely even have *seen* it) by now.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:34:22 GMT ' From: nospam <x@wedontwantyourspam.com> C Subject: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! 5 Message-ID: <BC466D12.1F09D%x@wedontwantyourspam.com>   3 in article 401FDE58.A7D823A4@istop.com, JF Mezei at 4 jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com wrote on 04/02/2004 04:46:   > "Dr. Dweeb" wrote:N >> Intel.  While Intel will not founder with the EPIC (they still own the cashL >> cow), there is a very real chance that HP HighEnd division will - and the4 >> only ones who will really care are the VMS folks. > K > The minute Intel singals to HP that it wants out of that disaster of EPIC L > proportions, HP will then negotiate a deal where HP will pay for continuedP > development of IA64 for X number of years in exchange for Intel paying for theO > port of HP-UX, Tandem/NSK and possibly VMS to the Intel version of the 64 bit  > 8086. I What a dumb idea, 80x86 is dead-end. I like certain parts of the Itanium, I lots of registers and basically a bit more thought about running a modern K OS. If you not going to have alpha, then let it be Itanium or go completely A off the track and use IBM's Power ... ;)  Itanium hasn't been the H performance winner out of the starting gate. Right now it seems that theL 1.5Ghz chip has the numbers but that's taken a while. I'm sure there's a lotJ of silicon in the bin to get there. Itanium is lucking its supporters haveI such deep pockets ;)  Since Itanium is a workable processor it will power L HP-UX, VMS, Linux and Windows the only real issue is how much you people outK there choose to run it. VMS quality has kept it going. Its an amazing story D of survival but I cant see how the final switch to itanium wont dumpK thousands more users from the VMS bucket. At this point in time you have to K be kidding yourself if you believe VMS can do things that some other OS can L not and given the uncertainty the correct business decision is not to investK in a transition of VMS to itanium but to jump ship at the port to avoid any  icebergs :)   	   mark ;)    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:44:24 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> C Subject: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! J Message-ID: <Y7YTb.116623$9Ce1.49002@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  
 nospam wrote: 5 > in article 401FDE58.A7D823A4@istop.com, JF Mezei at 6 > jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com wrote on 04/02/2004 04:46: >    < major snip>    > Right now it seems that the @ > 1.5Ghz chip has the numbers but that's taken a while. I'm sureF > there's a lot of silicon in the bin to get there. Itanium is luckingG > its supporters have such deep pockets ;)  Since Itanium is a workable E > processor it will power HP-UX, VMS, Linux and Windows the only real F > issue is how much you people out there choose to run it. VMS qualityD > has kept it going. Its an amazing story of survival but I cant seeE > how the final switch to itanium wont dump thousands more users from G > the VMS bucket. At this point in time you have to be kidding yourself G > if you believe VMS can do things that some other OS can not and given E > the uncertainty the correct business decision is not to invest in a D > transition of VMS to itanium but to jump ship at the port to avoid > any icebergs :)     I Herein lies the danger for VMS's future. VMS *could* survive another port G *IF* it had a growing market share, but without advertising & effective L marketing, it will simply go into maintenance mode and thence drift off intoK the long night. Probably the same for NSK, irrespective of what the banking H community might say, unless they were willing to pay for hand-made cpu's7 made in exceedingly small batches of say 500 per month.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:39:16 -0500 * From: JF mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>C Subject: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! ( Message-ID: <40206940.C418CF7@istop.com>   John Smith wrote: K > Herein lies the danger for VMS's future. VMS *could* survive another port I > *IF* it had a growing market share, but without advertising & effective N > marketing, it will simply go into maintenance mode and thence drift off into > the long night.   H While there was negative support for the murder of Alpha and port to theN unwanted IA64 which had been ridiculed by DEC staff as a very bad architectureJ with no way it could compete against Alpha, I think that this time around,H when they cancel IA64 (which would still be an abortion since IA64 stillL hasn't taken off) and announce a final port to the true industry standard, IL think that this would give VMS a boost and a lot more goodwill to be patientG because this time, it is sure to be a better move from a failed IA64 to R industry standard, versus the move from the better Alpha chip to a stillborn IA64.  N Yes, Power is probably the better solution for a quality operating system. ButN at this point in time, the best we could hope for is a move to the 8086, which( shows just how low our expectations are.    = > Probably the same for NSK, irrespective of what the banking J > community might say, unless they were willing to pay for hand-made cpu's9 > made in exceedingly small batches of say 500 per month.    Can't NSK stay with MIPS ?   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue,  3 Feb 2004 23:18:41 +0100 (CET) . From: starwars <nobody@tatooine.homelinux.net>! Subject: Re: J F's Victim Complex E Message-ID: <97507f280407fd5ea879a21fbb7c8511@tatooine.homelinux.net>   6 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> trolled for pity:   >Madonna wrote:  >> [^can\.internet\.highspeed$]  >>     Score:: -9999 >>         Subject: Mezei ! >>         XRef: rec\.travel\.air ( >>         Message-ID: anonymous\.poster >>   >>     Score:: -9999M >>         Subject: HOMOSEXUAL|JEW|JEWISH|NIGGER|COCK|ASSHOLE|\$\$\$+|\!\!\!+  >  > I >Geez, I don't quite appreciate, as a victim, having my name in there....   M This "victim" schtick of yours is really old.  It's been a long-running theme 5 since you first started trolling usenet a decade ago.   O Funny how the people in Al Qaeda, suicide bombers in the middle east, and other : terrorists in general all see themselves as "victims" too.   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 19:59:02 -0800 . From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)4 Subject: Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting)= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0402031959.7b330fe1@posting.google.com>   b lewis@mazda.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) wrote in message news:<bvm3ic$6bu$1@newslocal.mitre.org>... > Didier Morandi <no@spam.com> writes in article <401adfe3$0$22318$626a54ce@news.free.fr> dated Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:48:39 +0100:W > >May I suggest to the Venerable c.o.v. Community to turn our group to moderated mode?  >  > I like it fine the way it is.  > C > But I will to you that this anti-JF nutcase usually crossposts to I > rec.travel.air, which has pretty much nothing to do with VMS.  Adding a H > filter which ignores all articles which are crossposted to both groupsD > carries a near-zero risk of missing anything you might actually be2 > interested in, and it eliminates much stupidity. > J > 25 of 163 articles were squelched by this filter today in my newsreader. > 2 > --Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org@ > The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.    D I read this ng via Google, and I know of know way to filter out thisA nutcase's krap. While I can simply not open his threads, they are A often half of the list! I tire of seeing them again and again and @ would definitely consider voting for a moderator. When deja wentD under, I tried various free news sites but they were all either very= slow or very incomplete or both. And as far as this nutcase's C continual cross-posting to our group goes, it looks like there's no 1 end in sight. You'd think he tire of this by now.    Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:13:28 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>4 Subject: Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting)) Message-ID: <40208D5B.38372843@istop.com>    "Alan E. Feldman" wrote:F > I read this ng via Google, and I know of know way to filter out this > nutcase's krap.   G Everyone should contact their ISP and ask them to put pressure on their O upstream newsfeed to simply filter out all postys from the anonymous remailers.   N I can assure you that none of them respond in any meaningful way to complaintsH of abuse and in fact provide the tools to send abuse in a frequency thatN doesn't trigger spam detection. And maming a public omcplain in the news abuseN newsgroup results in the anonymous remailers sending hundreds of abusive posts5 about you to the newsgroups as well as your mailbox.    M And Google should be the first one to filter out an/all anonymous posts. When L some reputable anonymiser comes out with strict fileters and guildelines (noU From: spoofing, no crossposting etc), then that remailer's posts might be acceptable.   H It is pointless to complain to the remailers. you must complain to their upstream providers.    ------------------------------  + Date: Tue,  3 Feb 2004 23:18:29 +0100 (CET) . From: starwars <nobody@tatooine.homelinux.net># Subject: More domain theft from J F E Message-ID: <d8b3236c5112f44ed56584be68118081@tatooine.homelinux.net>   K nobody.info is a registered domain.  Report Mezei's theft and abuse of this ) domain to its owner  <blue@bluepixel.gr>.    Domain Name:NOBODY.INFO 
 Status:ACTIVE 	 Status:OK $ Registrant Name:Konstantinos Zournas Registrant City:Patras Registrant State/Province:Ac Registrant Country:GR  Registrant Phone:+30.2108847638  Registrant FAX:+30.2108253562 " Registrant Email:blue@bluepixel.gr   Also report him to:    abuse@sympatico.ca abuse@bellglobal.com abuse@istop.com    Jean-Francois Mezei  86 Harwood Gate  Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3  (514) 695-8259   A DECADE OF USENET TROLLING    jfmezei@istop.com  jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com  jfmezei@videotron.ca jfmezei@vl.videotron.ca  nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca  "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]  # snowy squirrel <squirrel@nest.tree>  nobody <nobody@nobody.com>) Conspiracy Theory <conspiracy@theory.org> & Lou Raccoon <L.Raccoon@wilderness.org>$ Flapping Labias <flabia@anatomy.org>% Throbbing vulva <t.vulva@anatomy.org>  Twin Gonads <two@gonads.com>% Loose Scrotum <l.scrotum@anatomy.org> " Raised Organ <R.Organ@anatomy.org>$ Popped Cherry <P.Cherry@anatomy.org>- Monica Lewinski <billclinton@westchester.com> ' Deep Fried Foreskin <dff@mcdonalds.com> " Aroma of Smegma <aroma@chanel.org> Wet fart <w.Fart@smell.org> ' Pubic dandruff <P.dandruff@anatomy.org> ( Voluptuous Nipple <V.nipple@anatomy.org>& Inserted Finger <I.Finger@anatomy.org> Pubic Nair <shaved@anatomy.org> ' Flatulent Meatus <F.Meatus@anatomy.org> % Lihk Mhygroin <L.MyGroin@anatomy.org>  Pre Khum <P.Khum@anatomy.org> ! Phi Mosis <Phi.Mosis@anatomy.org> # Bal Anatis <Bal.Anatis@anatomy.org>   Fren Ullum <F.Ullum@anatomy.org>$ Ivanna Getlaid <I.Getlaid@onani.org>& Ivanna Wankalot <I.Wankalot@onani.org>$ Ivanna Umpalot <Humpalot@drevil.com>* Wan Tnoneofit <W.Tnoneofit@weirdnames.org> Wan Itbad <W.Itbad@inneed.org>! Wan Towank <W.ToWank@anatomy.org>N Wan Tolik <w.tolik@anatomy.org>0$ Testos Terone <t.terone@anatomy.org>! Upper Gonad <U.Gonad@anatomy.org>t! Right Gonad <R.Gonad@anatomy.org>   Left Gonad <L.Gonad@anatomy.org>$ Tyson's Glands <Tyson.G@anatomy.org> Nose Hair <n.hair@anatomy.org>% Coronal Sulcus <C.Sulcus@anatomy.org>y% Corpus Cavernus <manhood@anatomy.org>,$ Armpit moisture <armpit@anatomy.org> Onani Room <onani@hotels.com>Y& Arnie's Banana <weiner@terminator.com>( Raised eyebrows <r.eyebrows@anatomy.org>% Vas Deferens <V.deferens@anatomy.org> % Naked Canuck <N.canuck@naturists.org> & Arni's socks <Smelly.Socks@arnold.org>* Notable Exception <N.exception@untied.com>& Unpopped Cherry <U.Cherry@anatomy.org>' Tatooed Ovaries <T.Ovaries@anatomy.org>i' Pierced eyelid <p.eyelid@piercings.org>N( Limp Tomato <limp.tomato@vegetables.org>, Eggplant Earrings <e.earrings@piercings.org>. Banana Underpants <B.Underpants@hillfiger.org> Naval Lint <navel@lint.mil>r' Ingrown Toenail <i.toenail@anatomy.org>e% Empty Stomach <E.Stomach@anatomy.org>e$ Full Stomach <f.stomach@anatomy.org>" Smelly Cat <S.Cat@friends.nbc.com>& Torn Ligament <T.Ligament@anatomy.org># Art Tistic <A.Tistic@modern.museum>M( Furry Raccoon <F.Raccoon@wilderness.org>% Wet Racoon <W.Racoon@wildnerness.org>y" Mad Racoon <M.Racoon@wildlife.org>% Lazy Racoon <L.Racoon@wilderness.org>W& Eaten Racoon <E.Raccoon@mcdonalds.com>' Happy Raccoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org>v) Sleeping Racoon <S.Racoon@wilderness.org>"' Hungry Racoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org>e" Horny Raccoon <H.Racoon@fauna.org>( Smart Raccoon <S.Raccoon@wilderness.org>, George W Raccoon <GW.Raccoon@wilderness.org>+ Ronald McRaccoon <r.raccoon@wilderness.org>e* Thirsty Raccoon <T.Raccoon@wilderness.org>( Johnny Raccoon <J.Racoon@wilderness.org>' Oshi Santo <O.Santo@nx01.starfleet.org> * Oishi Chinko <O.Chinko@nx01.starfleet.org> T.Yellow <T.Yellow@nowhere.com>  Q <queue@continuum.net>  Borg Queen <1of1@borg.org>* Ronald Wilkerson <wilkersonr@sympatico.ca>) John Balterman <j.balterman@sympatico.ca>    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:17:22 GMTo( From: "~ Darrell  Larose ~" <me@here.eh>' Subject: Re: More domain theft from J FnK Message-ID: <6_VTb.122611$ef.24075@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>-  L Ok, have the guy in the UK, and the guy in Greece sue! As they overseas theyG will have to file the civil suit in Quebec if that is where the allegedy action took place.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:15:23 GMT ( From: "~ Darrell  Larose ~" <me@here.eh>. Subject: Re: More M/e/z/e/i abuse - nobody.orgL Message-ID: <fYVTb.122572$ef.114787@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   You forgot one nobodycares.org   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:18:17 -0800h& From: Tom Crabtree <tccrab@sunset.net> Subject: Re: MyDoom.Ba, Message-ID: <bvp36e01u61@enews3.newsguy.com>  H > Here we have a child who could not even graduate from grade school, asA > evidenced by the lack of ability in using the English language.o > --  D Actually, if you read his bio at http://www.jeremyshum.com/bio.html F you'd see that it would appear that he is one of the 'gifted' ones of  today's generation.oI Of course, you'd have to assume that it really was posted by Jeremy, and o- that he wouldn't over embellish his web page.,G Sadly, it was probably Jeremy who posted it, and even more sadly, this EH is probably a fairly accurate representation of the way that the 'Youth + of the World' think and express themselves.U   *sigh*   To   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 22:45:18 -0800-* From: jeremyshum@hotmail.com (Jeremy Shum) Subject: Re: MyDoom.Be= Message-ID: <e9b82ade.0402032245.257717a1@posting.google.com>t  P at least i knw wat im doin... ur link 4 ur bloody website doesnt even work bitch   "Tillman, Brian (AGRE)" <Brian.Tillman@smiths-aerospace.com> wrote in message news:<11721EF39C7D7F47A55447158274CAF7900700@cossmgmbx01.email.corp.tld>...s > Jeremy Shum wrote: > A > > i am not the creator of MyDoom.B although i thnk whoever madew. > > the MyDoom.B virus cuz i TOTALLY HATE SCO. > H > Here we have a child who could not even graduate from grade school, asA > evidenced by the lack of ability in using the English language.a > -- > Brian Tillman        n > Smiths Aerospace  > 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 > Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991k@ > Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain. >       < > I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me. >  >  > , > ******************************************H > The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may containE >  confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the H >  individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject toI >  legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you shouldiI >  notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message fromMM >  your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for anycG >  purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views oraJ >  opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and doH >  not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient shouldJ >  check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  TheB >  company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or6 >  indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email., > ******************************************   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 11:18:58 -0800 ( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)T Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0402031118.50ff9479@posting.google.com>c   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvo34d$bg0$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...n > Dirk Munk wrote: > > Hi Bob,  > > K > > I suppose this is a reaction on some earlier message by Andrew ? Which  I > > one is it ? (there are some many). If you can gibe me date and time, b > > that would be nice.) > >  > / > I posted a number of Multinet vunerabilites..c > 4 > For reasons better known to himself Bob has chosen6 > to respond with some TCPWARE examples. Now why isn't& > that the surprise that it should be. >  > 	 > Regards: > Andrew Harrisone  > and if you could read and comprehend the english language, you9 would see the above was for both multinet and tcpware ...a   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 11:29:45 -0800b. From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com (William Webb)T Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!= Message-ID: <d5ce4b06.0402031129.2c810441@posting.google.com>s   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvo34d$bg0$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > Dirk Munk wrote: > > Hi Bob,c > > K > > I suppose this is a reaction on some earlier message by Andrew ? Which 3I > > one is it ? (there are some many). If you can gibe me date and time, a > > that would be nice.e > >  > / > I posted a number of Multinet vunerabilites..  > 4 > For reasons better known to himself Bob has chosen6 > to respond with some TCPWARE examples. Now why isn't& > that the surprise that it should be. >  > 	 > Regardsb > Andrew Harrison- > >  > > Bob Ceculski wrote:  > > H > >> Yes, but first redesign and rewrite your unix to cleanly catagorize > >> and separateoK > >> Kernel Mode from Supervisor Mode and from User Mode. Three modes are a  > >> minimumI > >> for a correct ring protection system. The use of three or more ringsn > >> happens to H > >> be a fully patented methodology by OpenVMS Engineering. OpenVMS has
 > >> four.J > >> OpenVMS also has 40 groups of higher mode functionality classified as > >> requiring > >> special named privileges. : > >  > >   @ Changing the subject isn't exactly responding to the man's post, Andrew.n  F The post in question was made by Keith Cayemberg with IBM/Deutschland:  F It can be found in its original format at the following URL (watch out for that inevitable URL wrap!):   c http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3a65a5c8.0401091542.1df169b%40posting.google.com&output=gplaini   WWWebb    7 The North Carolina ENCOMPASS LUG officially exists now! F See http://listserv.encompassus.org/Archives/nclug-l.html for details.   ========================! William W. Webb- EMS Operations,   OpenVMS Systems Support % USPS DSSC Annex - 4730 Hargrove Road d( Raleigh, NC 27616-2874 919.325.7500x4186 * * * -l   ------------------------------   Date: 03 Feb 2004 23:07:09 GMT( From: ka2doug@cs.commoc.sc (DL Phillips)T Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!> Message-ID: <20040203180709.21785.00001324@mb-m14.news.cs.com>  0 >From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com  (William Webb) >TA >Changing the subject isn't exactly responding to the man's post,i >Andrew. >rG >The post in question was made by Keith Cayemberg with IBM/Deutschland:> > G >It can be found in its original format at the following URL (watch out   >for that inevitable URL wrap!): >3 > J >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3a65a5c8.0401091542.1df169b%40postin g.google.com&output=gplain >  >WWWebbs >  >e  N Sigh. Unfortunately Bob C went and posted a reply to his own post which openedL the door for Andrew to ignore the original subject while claiming to address2 the thread. FUD-Master-AH wins again. Double-Sigh.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:25:24 +0000oO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> " Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvop2l$j6f$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvnus3$9vt$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >  > C >>>	But you are contradicting yourself.  Of course they have longeryC >>>	than that.  As UltraSparc sure isn't going away.  Where is the m >>>	contradiction?  See below. >>>- >># >>Do I have to spell it out to you.0 >>8 >>US is a much cheaper processor to do than Itanium, Sun7 >>designs the CPU's and TI FABS them. The combined cost85 >>base to Sun and TI is rather lower than Itanium. NoE6 >>one in the history of CPU development has ever spent7 >>5 billion on a new architecture (except HP and Intel)i
 >>that is. >> >  > ? > 	While Cost of Manufacturing is fun to talk about, that isn'tD@ > 	the issue.  Total system cost that the end user pays will be. >   4 Odd later in your points you talk almost exclusively) about CPU cost. But hey lets play anyway.   5 USIIIi is more integrated than Itanium and its cooler 6 so in the 1-4 way space it allows Sun to build systems6 that are a fraction of the price of an Itanium server.  + The total cost that the user pays is lower.   B > 	Wonderful.  But you are side-stepping the point - you - brought? > 	up.  You brought up the fact that IDC is lowering Itanium to ? > 	an $8 billion a year business in 2007.  At the rate SPARC isdB > 	sliding it will be doing less than the $1.4 billion per quarter> > 	I quoted by 2007.  Let's be generous and say that SPARC has= > 	slide off to $4 billion per year by 2007.  That is 1/2 thecH > 	size of the Itanium market by 2007.  You'll be selling faster/cheaperA > 	Opteron boxes - UltraSparc won't make sense in a month or two,T	 > 	right?s >   6 SPARC revenues are currently ~1.5 billion a quarter or 6 billion a year.I  < In fact IDC's estimate for Itanium is that the total Itanium1 market will be 7.5 billion in 2007. This estimate 2 was before the recent Intel CT announcements which6 I expect will result in a further downgrading in IDC's
 estimates.  5 The 7.5 billion is down from an origional estimate of > 28 billion made by IDC at the start of the project/experiment/ disaster (you chose).6  7 IDC made their origional estimate based on the business < case the HP and Intel made for Itanium, it was that business: case that also influenced Intels decision to do Itanium in the first place.  5 Only the most hardened optimist could conclude that ah5 business cased made on a revenue stream of 28 billionT3 will not be under very severe pressure now that the 3 projected revenue stream has slumped to 7.5 billiont and is still falling.h   >   D >>You seemed to have missed the point, currently Intel is responding+ >>to AMD pricing not the other way arround.  >>1 >>It also isn't a winning strategy for 2 reasons.,? >>1.	Intel needs to substantially undercut AMD because the costg: >>	base for building a Xeon based system is higer than the9 >>	equivalent AMD based system (excluding the CPU costs).a >  > > > 	I wouldn't think so.  Especially with Dell/HP/IBM discountsA > 	in hand.  Besides, they obviously can make a boatload of moneyp0 > 	selling them or they would rush to the exits. >  > 6 >>	Do you honestly think that potential Intel/AMD OEMS9 >>	don't tally up the cost of the whole mother board/CPU.c >  >  > . > 	Sure.  Mom and Pop shops do.  Dell doesn't. >   < Of course they do, Dell does more than any other vendor, why> do you think that Dell get so much stuff built onto the mother board on their PC's ?  > ; >>	In the past AMD used to market their CPU's as being moreS= >>	cost effective than Intel with Intel marketing their CPU'sp; >>	as the gold standard. The Intel Inside marketing programe >>	for example.  >>; >>	Intel are used to people being prepared to pay a premium < >>	for an Intel based box, that is going to disappear unless" >>	they can get CT to market ASAP. >> >  > B > 	No.  Dell PCs are very affordable as are Dell based Xeon boxes. >   0 What has this got to do with the price of fish ?6 BNut not as affordable as Opteron based servers as you
 will find.  D > 	Show us how much cheaper a 4-way Sun Opteron box will be comparedI > 	to a 4-way Dell Xeon box.  That will be a data point.  Do that and youaC > 	will watch your 4-way UltraSparc's be marginalized (and not that 3 > 	Celeron equivalent box you trotted out earlier).e  C I cannot possibly tell you how much our 2 and 4 way boxes will cost<C however lets compare a 2 way IBM x325 with 2 x 2.2 Mhz Opterons andsA 2 GB of RAM it costs $5959 while 4 way Opteron based servers with-# 8 GB of RAM can be had for $23,000.-  C A Dell Poweredge 1750 with 2 x 3.2 Ghz Xeons and the same config asgD the IBM costs $6032. A Dell PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz XeonMP's and 8 GB of RAM costs $30120.   E As you can see when hard fact intrude your case withdraws, as always.i   Regards  Andrew Harrisoni   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 13:45:31 -0600i+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)f" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <ZazRlAFPNac6@eisner.encompasserve.org>l   In article <bvop2l$j6f$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:   > C >> 	Wonderful.  But you are side-stepping the point - you - broughtr@ >> 	up.  You brought up the fact that IDC is lowering Itanium to@ >> 	an $8 billion a year business in 2007.  At the rate SPARC isC >> 	sliding it will be doing less than the $1.4 billion per quartera? >> 	I quoted by 2007.  Let's be generous and say that SPARC hass> >> 	slide off to $4 billion per year by 2007.  That is 1/2 theI >> 	size of the Itanium market by 2007.  You'll be selling faster/cheaper B >> 	Opteron boxes - UltraSparc won't make sense in a month or two,
 >> 	right? >> r > 8 > SPARC revenues are currently ~1.5 billion a quarter or > 6 billion a year.  > > > In fact IDC's estimate for Itanium is that the total Itanium3 > market will be 7.5 billion in 2007. This estimatee4 > was before the recent Intel CT announcements which8 > I expect will result in a further downgrading in IDC's > estimates. > 7 > The 7.5 billion is down from an origional estimate of @ > 28 billion made by IDC at the start of the project/experiment/ > disaster (you chose).r > 9 > IDC made their origional estimate based on the businessH> > case the HP and Intel made for Itanium, it was that business< > case that also influenced Intels decision to do Itanium in > the first place. > 7 > Only the most hardened optimist could conclude that ai7 > business cased made on a revenue stream of 28 billionm5 > will not be under very severe pressure now that then5 > projected revenue stream has slumped to 7.5 billion  > and is still falling.a >   > 	Okay.  I'll humor you.  $7.5 billion for Itanium.  $6 billion 	for Sun, when?  Two years ago?   Q http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edgardoc/finSys_main.asp?dcn=0000891618-02-002345a  s>               Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended     c               March 31, 2002            April 1, 2001        March 31, 2002      April 1, 2001     *? Net revenues:                                                  r_       Products           $  2,269        $  3,262            $  6,586            $  11,922     e[       Services                838             833               2,490            2,333     l       \    Total net revenues       3,107           4,095               9,076            14,255        Certainly not recently:s      + View the latest financials for this companya         N The following EDGAR Online Glimpse is the Management's Discussion and Analysis& section in the full 10-Q / 10-K report  O Recent Glimpses: Nov 2003 (Qtrly Rpt) | Sep 2003 (Annual Rpt) | May 2003 (Qtrlyt4 Rpt) | Feb 2003 (Qtrly Rpt) | All filings for SUNW   SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC Filed on Nov 12 2003  P ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS  OF OPERATIONS       A This quarterly report, including the following sections, contains*G forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities8E Litigation Reform Act of 1995, particularly statements related to ourlM expectations regarding component cost reductions, our expectations as to cashgM expenditures relating to workforce reductions, our belief that we continue toUM make substantial progress related to the development and commercialization ofoJ acquired technologies, our estimate for full year tax provision, inventoryI management continuing to be an area of focus, our expectation to generateiK positive cash flow from operations for the full fiscal year ending June 30, J 2004, our long-term strategy to maintain a minimum amount of cash and cashI equivalents in subsidiaries and to invest the remaining amount of cash inaG interest bearing and highly liquid cash equivalents and marketable debtfL securities, our belief that we will not need to repatriate funds to our U.S.I operations, our belief that the liquidity provided by existing cash, cashrO equivalents, marketable debt securities and cash generated from operations willrL provide sufficient capital to meet our requirements for at least the next 12I months, our belief that our level of financial resources is a significantnM competitive factor in our industry, our belief that the Kodak suit is withoutaM merit and our intent to defend ourselves and pursue counterclaims vigorously,eO our belief that the Microsoft counterclaims are without merit and our intent touJ present a vigorous defense, and our belief that we will be able to reach a$ negotiated resolution with the BIS.       I These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and the L cautionary statements set forth below and those contained in "RISK FACTORS,"O identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materiallyoI from those predicted in any such forward-looking statements. Such factors.I include, but are not limited to, increased competition, continued adversecO economic conditions in the U.S. and internationally, including adverse economicuE conditions in the specific markets for our products, adverse businesstL conditions, failure to design, develop and manufacture new products, lack ofM success in technological advancements, lack of acceptance of new products and0M services, unexpected changes in the demand for our products and services, the O inability to successfully manage inventory pricing pressures, failure to reduce.G costs or improve operating efficiencies, changes to and compliance with1L international laws and regulations, currency fluctuations and our ability to6 attract, hire and retain key and qualified employees.          Table of Contents      RESULTS OF OPERATIONS         
 Net Revenues .       (dollars in millions)     N                                                                          Three' Months Ended                            >                                                               7 ---------------------------------------                Iu                                                                 September 28,          September 29,                 wq                                                                     2003               2002               Change nV                                                                ---------------        ! ---------------         ------   hx Computer Systems products                                      $         1,282         $         1,512          (15.2 )%l Network Storage products                                                   352        368            (4.3 )%     D 	Latest quarter ended shows you are down to $1.3 billion per quarterC 	in computer system products.  That's more like $5 billion per yearF 	and trending down.p   >>   > E >>>You seemed to have missed the point, currently Intel is respondings, >>>to AMD pricing not the other way arround. >>> 2 >>>It also isn't a winning strategy for 2 reasons.@ >>>1.	Intel needs to substantially undercut AMD because the cost; >>>	base for building a Xeon based system is higer than thew: >>>	equivalent AMD based system (excluding the CPU costs). >> n >> t? >> 	I wouldn't think so.  Especially with Dell/HP/IBM discountsHB >> 	in hand.  Besides, they obviously can make a boatload of money1 >> 	selling them or they would rush to the exits.o >> e >> i7 >>>	Do you honestly think that potential Intel/AMD OEMSt: >>>	don't tally up the cost of the whole mother board/CPU. >> 0 >> s >> -/ >> 	Sure.  Mom and Pop shops do.  Dell doesn't.o >> i > > > Of course they do, Dell does more than any other vendor, why@ > do you think that Dell get so much stuff built onto the mother > board on their PC's ?   = 	Right.  My misread.  I thought you were voicing concern overn> 	it having anything to do with what they choose - Intel versusA 	AMD.  It certainly does matter what board manufacturer and Dell l 	shops the world.h   >> o< >>>	In the past AMD used to market their CPU's as being more> >>>	cost effective than Intel with Intel marketing their CPU's< >>>	as the gold standard. The Intel Inside marketing program >>>	for example. >>> < >>>	Intel are used to people being prepared to pay a premium= >>>	for an Intel based box, that is going to disappear unlessa# >>>	they can get CT to market ASAP.f >>>h >>   >> tC >> 	No.  Dell PCs are very affordable as are Dell based Xeon boxes.e >> S > 2 > What has this got to do with the price of fish ?   	Probably a lot.  8 > BNut not as affordable as Opteron based servers as you > will find.  B 	But system cost at end of day.  Sure, some mom and pops will sell( 	cheaper than Dell - they always have.     > E >> 	Show us how much cheaper a 4-way Sun Opteron box will be comparedjJ >> 	to a 4-way Dell Xeon box.  That will be a data point.  Do that and youD >> 	will watch your 4-way UltraSparc's be marginalized (and not that4 >> 	Celeron equivalent box you trotted out earlier). > E > I cannot possibly tell you how much our 2 and 4 way boxes will cost E > however lets compare a 2 way IBM x325 with 2 x 2.2 Mhz Opterons andhC > 2 GB of RAM it costs $5959 while 4 way Opteron based servers withc% > 8 GB of RAM can be had for $23,000.l >    	But we will know soon enough.  E > A Dell Poweredge 1750 with 2 x 3.2 Ghz Xeons and the same config asUF > the IBM costs $6032. A Dell PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz XeonMP's > and 8 GB of RAM costs $30120.q    = 	That 2-way is very close.  Are you comparing a Celeron 4-way E 	again?  I just did a 6650 4-way 2.8 GHz and 8 GByte of RAM and came eF 	up with 26,900 for a Dell.  Appears your prices are out of date, that6 	or you are loading it up with a bunch of other stuff.  C 	Let me do a Celeron special, like you did the other day , and the cD 	price drops to  $17242 using 4 -  2.0 GHz CPUs and 8 GBytes of RAM.   				Robt   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:02:06 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars2 Message-ID: <8_idne1T44Slkb3d4p2dnA@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:pB3gBq4Z1fQw@eisner.encompasserve.org...i@ > In article <N8ydncaOLp5XIoLdRVn-hg@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"  <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > >s >a > > 5 > >  I may have misunderstood this, but I thought the-H > >> other major benefit of using the L3 cache is to reduce (memory) bus
 > >> traffic?e > >pJ > > Not an issue for SPECint/fp, and probably not for anything else either (IL > > don't think that the bandwidth of IBM's memory bus, which IIRC hangs off theeK > > off-chip L3 cache rather than off the processor, is the limiting factora inF > > any workloads).  If you meant that a large L3 can reduce inter-MCM trafficsL > > in large (more than 8-processor) systems, that's indeed true - but againG > > completely irrelevant to SPECint/fp (which don't stress that area).e > >a >d= > It depends on the fp footprint, if it fits inside the cachet1 > it will of course run faster (mostly the case).   K Read the above again, Rob:  the subject was bandwidth, not latency (latencya had been addressed previously).t     You can googleC > groups.google.com - this has been discussed in one form or other.l  L Even if you insist on going back to latency, the point is that even if *all*L of SPEC fit into the p690's off-chip L3 that L3 is much closer in latency toL main memory (90+ ns. vs. 150+ ns. for the zx1 chipset) than to on-chip cache# (about 10 ns. for current Itanics).y  F Try to understand the discussion next time before putting in your oar.   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 15:54:51 -0600r+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) " Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <ZMd5DZrgAfVK@eisner.encompasserve.org>   _ In article <8_idne1T44Slkb3d4p2dnA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:- > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:pB3gBq4Z1fQw@eisner.encompasserve.org....A >> In article <N8ydncaOLp5XIoLdRVn-hg@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"f" > <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >> > >> >> >6 >> >  I may have misunderstood this, but I thought theI >> >> other major benefit of using the L3 cache is to reduce (memory) bus  >> >> traffic? >> >K >> > Not an issue for SPECint/fp, and probably not for anything else eitherr > (IM >> > don't think that the bandwidth of IBM's memory bus, which IIRC hangs offS > the$L >> > off-chip L3 cache rather than off the processor, is the limiting factor > inG >> > any workloads).  If you meant that a large L3 can reduce inter-MCMn	 > trafficnM >> > in large (more than 8-processor) systems, that's indeed true - but again H >> > completely irrelevant to SPECint/fp (which don't stress that area). >> > >>> >> It depends on the fp footprint, if it fits inside the cache2 >> it will of course run faster (mostly the case). > M > Read the above again, Rob:  the subject was bandwidth, not latency (latency(! > had been addressed previously).9 >   2 	Oh my - getting as petty as our British Champion.  H 	He mentions "what major benefit" L3/fp.  The major benefit with on-chip9 	caches and fp benchmarks is seen when you look at scorest? 	and size of the benchmark.  The benchmark runs faster (higher 0+ 	numbers) if it fits entirely inside cache.e   >   You can googleD >> groups.google.com - this has been discussed in one form or other. > N > Even if you insist on going back to latency, the point is that even if *all*N > of SPEC fit into the p690's off-chip L3 that L3 is much closer in latency toN > main memory (90+ ns. vs. 150+ ns. for the zx1 chipset) than to on-chip cache% > (about 10 ns. for current Itanics).u  ; 	Hmmm.. I don't see where I mention latency.  I'm referringp	 	to this:   5 http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/analysis/memory/i  ? 	You can see which ones fit inside a large L3 and coorelate thee= 	speedup (without looking, I believe Power doesn't do as wellp= 	at apsi, swim and others compared to sixtrack, ammp, equake)o  1 	There are other discussions that point this out.n   				Rob    ------------------------------  + Date: Tue,  3 Feb 2004 23:48:39 +0100 (CET) . From: starwars <nobody@tatooine.homelinux.net> Subject: snowy squirrelnE Message-ID: <71a3ed7be6bb1516743bd88deed744b0@tatooine.homelinux.net>w  ' Latest trolling alias of the psycho....t  # snowy squirrel <squirrel@nest.tree>    Jean-Francois Mezeio 86 Harwood Gaten Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3h (514) 695-8259   A DECADE OF USENET TROLLING    jfmezei@istop.com- jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com0 jfmezei@videotron.ca jfmezei@vl.videotron.cae nospam.jfmezei@videotron.cac "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]# snowy squirrel <squirrel@nest.tree>. nobody <nobody@nobody.com>) Conspiracy Theory <conspiracy@theory.org>G& Lou Raccoon <L.Raccoon@wilderness.org>$ Flapping Labias <flabia@anatomy.org>% Throbbing vulva <t.vulva@anatomy.org>m Twin Gonads <two@gonads.com>% Loose Scrotum <l.scrotum@anatomy.org>l" Raised Organ <R.Organ@anatomy.org>$ Popped Cherry <P.Cherry@anatomy.org>- Monica Lewinski <billclinton@westchester.com> ' Deep Fried Foreskin <dff@mcdonalds.com> " Aroma of Smegma <aroma@chanel.org> Wet fart <w.Fart@smell.org>n' Pubic dandruff <P.dandruff@anatomy.org>u( Voluptuous Nipple <V.nipple@anatomy.org>& Inserted Finger <I.Finger@anatomy.org> Pubic Nair <shaved@anatomy.org>w' Flatulent Meatus <F.Meatus@anatomy.org>l% Lihk Mhygroin <L.MyGroin@anatomy.org>  Pre Khum <P.Khum@anatomy.org>p! Phi Mosis <Phi.Mosis@anatomy.org>r# Bal Anatis <Bal.Anatis@anatomy.org>m  Fren Ullum <F.Ullum@anatomy.org>$ Ivanna Getlaid <I.Getlaid@onani.org>& Ivanna Wankalot <I.Wankalot@onani.org>$ Ivanna Umpalot <Humpalot@drevil.com>* Wan Tnoneofit <W.Tnoneofit@weirdnames.org> Wan Itbad <W.Itbad@inneed.org>! Wan Towank <W.ToWank@anatomy.org>  Wan Tolik <w.tolik@anatomy.org>.$ Testos Terone <t.terone@anatomy.org>! Upper Gonad <U.Gonad@anatomy.org>6! Right Gonad <R.Gonad@anatomy.org>h  Left Gonad <L.Gonad@anatomy.org>$ Tyson's Glands <Tyson.G@anatomy.org> Nose Hair <n.hair@anatomy.org>% Coronal Sulcus <C.Sulcus@anatomy.org>o% Corpus Cavernus <manhood@anatomy.org> $ Armpit moisture <armpit@anatomy.org> Onani Room <onani@hotels.com>r& Arnie's Banana <weiner@terminator.com>( Raised eyebrows <r.eyebrows@anatomy.org>% Vas Deferens <V.deferens@anatomy.org> % Naked Canuck <N.canuck@naturists.org> & Arni's socks <Smelly.Socks@arnold.org>* Notable Exception <N.exception@untied.com>& Unpopped Cherry <U.Cherry@anatomy.org>' Tatooed Ovaries <T.Ovaries@anatomy.org>9' Pierced eyelid <p.eyelid@piercings.org>e( Limp Tomato <limp.tomato@vegetables.org>, Eggplant Earrings <e.earrings@piercings.org>. Banana Underpants <B.Underpants@hillfiger.org> Naval Lint <navel@lint.mil>r' Ingrown Toenail <i.toenail@anatomy.org>n% Empty Stomach <E.Stomach@anatomy.org>c$ Full Stomach <f.stomach@anatomy.org>" Smelly Cat <S.Cat@friends.nbc.com>& Torn Ligament <T.Ligament@anatomy.org># Art Tistic <A.Tistic@modern.museum>g( Furry Raccoon <F.Raccoon@wilderness.org>% Wet Racoon <W.Racoon@wildnerness.org>." Mad Racoon <M.Racoon@wildlife.org>% Lazy Racoon <L.Racoon@wilderness.org>s& Eaten Racoon <E.Raccoon@mcdonalds.com>' Happy Raccoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org>c) Sleeping Racoon <S.Racoon@wilderness.org>u' Hungry Racoon <H.Racoon@wilderness.org>o" Horny Raccoon <H.Racoon@fauna.org>( Smart Raccoon <S.Raccoon@wilderness.org>, George W Raccoon <GW.Raccoon@wilderness.org>+ Ronald McRaccoon <r.raccoon@wilderness.org> * Thirsty Raccoon <T.Raccoon@wilderness.org>( Johnny Raccoon <J.Racoon@wilderness.org>' Oshi Santo <O.Santo@nx01.starfleet.org>g* Oishi Chinko <O.Chinko@nx01.starfleet.org> T.Yellow <T.Yellow@nowhere.com>v Q <queue@continuum.net>@ Borg Queen <1of1@borg.org>* Ronald Wilkerson <wilkersonr@sympatico.ca>) John Balterman <j.balterman@sympatico.ca>n   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:48:32 -0500$ From: Mike Duffy <Duffy@process.com>9 Subject: Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?"nJ Message-ID: <63D30D6E10CFD11190A90000F805FE860492B455@lespaul.process.com>  3 In case anyone had been made nervous by the subjectu line, here is the answer.y  4 Background:  As soon as I put the mandatory security8 update (and prerequisite kits) on my DS10L running V7.3,6 it has not stayed up for three consecutive days since.  8 Answer:  It was a power problem.  I only discovered this6 because I happened to be in the room when it happened.5 The machine is on an APC Back-UPS XS 1000, along withi6 the console terminal (a VT340, because that's what was7 laying around), and a DSL router.  I've seen this unit <9 easily handle the load for more than 15 minutes before.  e( The "overload" light is not illuminated.  = I took a small power hit, and the UPS made the characteristic < on-battery sound for a few seconds.  I looked up in time to : see the console terminal going through its power-on tests,9 and the Alpha was starting to boot.  This battery unit iso: only a few months old, and I don't think I've put too much5 of a load on it.  In any case, I moved the VT340 off.>  2 Thanks to everyone who answered the original post.   -Mike Duffyf   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 16:06:57 -0600o- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)r= Subject: Re: Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?"R3 Message-ID: <B8EmFMhupC3D@eisner.encompasserve.org>c  q In article <63D30D6E10CFD11190A90000F805FE860492B455@lespaul.process.com>, Mike Duffy <Duffy@process.com> writes:o > 5 > In case anyone had been made nervous by the subjectw > line, here is the answer.n > 6 > Background:  As soon as I put the mandatory security: > update (and prerequisite kits) on my DS10L running V7.3,8 > it has not stayed up for three consecutive days since. > " > Answer:  It was a power problem.  A Thanks a lot Mike, now we will be subjected to endless posts from ? Andrew Harrison claiming that VMS patches cause power problems.7   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:42:30 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>b& Subject: Status of Older Layered Prods9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIKEEFCMAA.tom@kednos.com>u  A In looking at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/info/spd/ there are a lotuD of older products.  Can these still be purchased?  If so, how do youH go about.  Usually the person at the other end of the Phone is clueless.  K It would be ideal for those who might need one of these to be able to ordero online.g --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 16:09:29 -0600.- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)>* Subject: Re: Status of Older Layered Prods3 Message-ID: <4HSu4+GHJ5Fa@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  _ In article <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIKEEFCMAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:.C > In looking at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/info/spd/ there are a lotnF > of older products.  Can these still be purchased?  If so, how do youJ > go about.  Usually the person at the other end of the Phone is clueless. > M > It would be ideal for those who might need one of these to be able to ordere	 > online.s  E That is where BusinessLink excells.  I have bought everything throughtJ BusinessLink (and predecessors) once my original MicroVAX II was obtained.   ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:56:45 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk& Subject: Re: stupid smtp/mapi question) Message-ID: <bvpcft$fpc$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>t  ~ In article <XCETb.12664$L02.4728@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>, Michael Austin <maustin@no-more-spam.firstdbasource.com> writes: >Rut wrote:w >eG >> Could someone explain the differences between smtp and mapi calls tolH >> send mail? If my company used Microsoft exchange and I have a programE >> making smtp calls, what exactly is going on? Do the calls still goYH >> through the exchange server or do they somehow get routed through the
 >> mainframe?  >> d
 >> THanks, >> Rut >i >yJ >SMTP is a mail protocol -- servers speak this "language" to other servers >s As do all SMTP mail CLIENTS.  A SMTP is a protocol for transfering mail messages between systems.,  H >MAPI is an Mail Application Programming Interface for a mail client -- I >your mail client (Outlook, Netscape, etc...) takes the message you have *I >written and uses a client that talks to an interface on the mail server ,I >which then transmits the message via the SMTP protocol to the recipient e >domain mail server. >rH >So, in short MAPI is a client to/from server, SMTP is server to server. >  NO.o  I MAPI is a Messaging API. It is used to write mail/messaging applications.a  O MAPI is a messaging architecture that enables multiple applications to interacteG with multiple messaging systems seamlessly across a variety of hardwareo
 platforms.   Froms http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/mapi/html/_mapi1book_concepts_and_architecture.aspy  L "MAPI is made up of a set of common application programming interfaces and aK dynamic-link library (DLL) component. The interfaces are used to create andbO access diverse messaging applications and messaging systems, offering a uniform M environment for development and use and providing true independence for both.-J The DLL contains the MAPI subsystem, which manages the interaction betweenN front-end messaging applications and back-end messaging systems and provides aN common user interface for frequent tasks. The MAPI subsystem acts as a centralL clearinghouse to unify the various messaging systems and shield clients from their differences. "n  C When sending messages a MAPI application could well use SMTP as thei) underlying protocol to send the messages.i    A MAPI compliant Client APP          MAPI compliant server         a+      |                                    |m,    SMTP   ------------->--------------- SMTP     From  s http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/mapi/html/_mapi1book_concepts_and_architecture.aspP   "eM MAPI provides cross platform support through such industry standards as SMTP,d) X.400, and Common Messaging Calls (CMC)."r  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   >  >Michael Austin  >w   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:31:14 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk& Subject: Re: stupid smtp/mapi question) Message-ID: <bvpegi$gd9$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>s  i In article <bvo446$u5gpa$1@ID-170759.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Winfried Bergmann" <dummy@empuron.com> writes:s0 >"Rut" <rutledj@rjrt.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag8 >news:d88f2c7d.0402030415.3af6175f@posting.google.com...H >> So if I write a program that uses smtp calls am I talking directly to1 >> the mail server and bypassing exchange server?  > J >No. If you want to talk to a mail server, you have to establish a networkL >connect and use SMTP to exchange data with this server. And the mail serverG >must understand SMTP. Don't know the protocols, the exchange server ist >using.P >EO The Exchange server will probably be using SMTP if it's talking to any externaldI systems. The other alternative - X400 - is rather out of favour nowadays.   O You cannot write a program which uses "smtp" calls as such since smtp is not an>) API (application programming interface). U  M An SMTP mail client connects to the smtp port on an SMTP mail server and thensO passes along a set of commands detailing who the message is from, who it is to mN and the body of the message. The SMTP server responds to these commands either# accepting or rejecting the message.i, The commands themselves are fairly simple eg   MAIL FROM:<fred@somewhere.com>    to specify who the mail is from   + the full details are specified in the RFCs.   K PERL and various other languages provide modules to simplify the writing of L programs to send mail messages using smtp but these aren't a standard set of1 calls and hence can't be regarded as an smtp API.?C But then you don't really need special calls SMTP is really SIMPLE. H Just make the connection to the SMTP Port and write the commands to that connection.s  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University >=   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:12:57 -0500S* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>& Subject: Re: stupid smtp/mapi question) Message-ID: <402046FE.824A54A8@istop.com>a   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: : > MAPI compliant Client APP          MAPI compliant server- >      |                                    |u. >    SMTP   ------------->--------------- SMTP    
 Not quite:       Applicationo        |     MAPI DLL        |T [some local server]--------------(some protocol)----------------[some remote server]    J The MAPI DLL is a library of routines that provide a standard set of callsK available to the application no matter what the underlying protocol is. The K application need not know what actual protocol is being used below the MAPIuG DLL, but user has a choice of which MAPI DLL to choose (eg: why type of : server) and then given a way to configure that connection.  H Perhaps the original poster was asking whether he should be using a MAPIJ driver that provides a connection to an SMTP server versus the MAPI driver% that connects to the exchange server.-  L This really depends on your corporate environment. If you're a windows shop,L you are probably expected to talk the proprietary microsoft protocols to theJ exchange server, and let some central gateway transfor this in to the real SMTP standard stuff.  L On the other hand, if you have a more mature shop, chances are that they mayL have a SMTP server to collect emails from clients and distribute them to theJ other users and the world. In this case, you'd be using a MAPI driver that talks to an SMTP server.   ------------------------------    Date: 03 Feb 2004 13:44:39 -0800( From: Javier Henderson <javier@KJSL.COM>C Subject: Re: Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100)e- Message-ID: <86fzdr6do8.fsf@skylane.kjsl.com>c  * brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon) writes:  > > Where is the 46 inch depth coming from?  Shipping container?  ( I got the dimensions from a DEC catalog.  ! > The 2100 I have (pedestal) is :  > , > depth  30" (just under - more like 29.75") > width  17" > height 26.5" (no wheels) > 9 > This leaves the skins on and the front panel cover off.n  < This makes the whole thing eminently doable. Any idea on the weight?a   -jav   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:12:51 -0600 ( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon)C Subject: Re: Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100)o1 Message-ID: <04020316125135@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>B   Javier Henderson writes:@ > > Where is the 46 inch depth coming from?  Shipping container? > * > I got the dimensions from a DEC catalog. > # > > The 2100 I have (pedestal) is :  > > . > > depth  30" (just under - more like 29.75") > > width  17" > > height 26.5" (no wheels) > > ; > > This leaves the skins on and the front panel cover off.  > > > This makes the whole thing eminently doable. Any idea on the	 > weight?e     DEC catalog?  Inches or cm?b   Try this link:C http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/archive/2100a/as2100a_pb.htmls   Height  66.0 cm (26.0 in.) Width   43.2 cm (17.0 in.) Depth   81.3 cm (32.0 in.) Weight  69 kg (150 lbs.)         J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*n5 VMS Systems Administratorm* firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:03:49 -0500a* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>C Subject: Re: Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100)t) Message-ID: <402044DA.EF1393AC@istop.com>    John Brandon wrote:t > Try this link:E > http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/archive/2100a/as2100a_pb.htmls  J Most interesting hidden jewel. It seems that Windows is still supported on) Alpha !!!! (according to the above link).o   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:15:38 GMTi/ From: "Charles J. Fisher" <cfisher@rhadmin.org> * Subject: Re: VMS runs well on HP Superdome? Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.53.0402031500420.6320@bart.rhadmin.org>m  ( On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Keith Parris wrote:  I > TruClusters and AdvFS from Tru64 will live on in HP-UX. The synergy hasn > been excellent.a  4 In this particular regard, I must disagree with you.  @ Tru64 was technically superior to HP-UX in a number of respects.  C HP had the opportunity to merge the two tastefully, creating a fine G vintage OS. HP-UX really needs to simply junk its packaging system, theiG imported Veritas filesystem, the 27 different installed versions of thegD Korn shell (only slightly exaggerated), CDE, pfsd, harden the OS out of the box, etc.  H HP also really hasn't been honest about the performance impact of Aries.D There is *no* binary compatibility between PA and Itanium. The AriesF virtual machine is good, but you can't expect native code performance.  H I had really hoped to see a "TruHP" operating system that was a completeH overhaul and a new frontier for commercial UNIX, perhaps integrating GNUI code in preference to SYSV. I wanted to see the same kernel on PA, Alpha,r3 and Itanium. I wanted to see new ideas in userland.e  H Instead, Tru64 was basically the victim of a "smash and grab," and HP-UX keeps all its faults.a  . Yes, doing it right would have been expensive.  O     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------dN    / Charles J. Fisher   |"How ridiculous not to flee from one's own wicked- /M   /  cfisher@rhadmin.org | ness, which is possible, yet endeavor to flee    / L  /   http://rhadmin.org  | from another's, which is not." -Marcus Aurelius /K ---------------------------------------------------------------------------a   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:56:28 -0500e* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>! Subject: Why was VAX abandonned ?i) Message-ID: <401FEED5.E7C9885D@istop.com>x  G > > I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporatingO6 > > current processor technologies would be dreamy :-)  L At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were thereN compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urge to' adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?w  N The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length instruction setN in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a fixed length instruction set ?v  N When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it makes one wonder* if the same could have been done with VAX.  % What was the fastest VAX chip made ?      M Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all designs foroI VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me a  couple thousands VAX chips ? t  J If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were toG provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest andtM greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly because the chip,tD albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd with, significantly better precision than before ?   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:32:08 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>	% Subject: RE: Why was VAX abandonned ?c9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIOEEACMAA.tom@kednos.com>   ? There is no reason why VAX architecture couldn't run as fast as @ Pentium.  Alpha was a foolish adventure.  My expreience suggestsB that it takes more-or-less two ticks of alpha to equal one of VAX.       -----Original Message-----3   From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com]o+   Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:56 AM    To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comr#   Subject: Why was VAX abandonned ?     I   > > I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporatingn8   > > current processor technologies would be dreamy :-)  C   At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha,    were there>   compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong   marketing urge to )   adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?v  @   The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length   instruction setnC   in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a    fixed length   instruction set ?   ?   When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it_   makes one wonder,   if the same could have been done with VAX.  &   What was the fastest VAX chip made ?    C   Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all 
   designs for1K   VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me a    couple thousands VAX chips ?  L   If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were toI   provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest and =   greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly    because the chip, F   albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd with.   significantly better precision than before ?     ---i(   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).B   Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:03:45 +0000 (UTC)% From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian Chase)n% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?P( Message-ID: <bvpju1$dcu$1@pcls4.std.com>  9 In article <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIOEEACMAA.tom@kednos.com>,s" Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote:  A > There is no reason why VAX architecture couldn't run as fast asdB > Pentium.  Alpha was a foolish adventure.  My expreience suggestsD > that it takes more-or-less two ticks of alpha to equal one of VAX.   And twice the memory!u  E That's one thing I definitely like about VAX as an architecture, its f3 code packs a lot of functionality in a small space.w   -brian.t -- fF --- Brian Chase | bdc@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----+ Font-o-Meter!      Proportional  Monospaced '                                       ^    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2004 20:10:49 -0800c1 From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski)u% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?r= Message-ID: <857e9e41.0402032010.44dfc388@posting.google.com>t   Well,d  F JF if I actually had any rights for VAX I would keep them.  VAX was anE awesome product and we still have many many customers still using VAXrB hardware, some on PDP and the 10's as well.  The same will be trueD about Alpha hardware 20 years from now too.  The Marvel machines areD probably my favorites Alpha,that machine really smokes, though I wasC very fond of the 4100's as well.  Maybe that is why seeing the VAX,uE Alpha and IPF in a cluster is so enjoyable, its like a family photo. e0 All the history makes the new generation better.  E Speaking of VAX chips I have a few that I keep that I got from one of C the VAX teams, folks saw them at the boot camp (and I made two into ! earings) Nope I am not a geek ;')    Just some late night thoughts, SueK    [ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<401FEED5.E7C9885D@istop.com>...mI > > > I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporatingl8 > > > current processor technologies would be dreamy :-) > N > At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were thereP > compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urge to) > adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?d > P > The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length instruction setP > in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a fixed length > instruction set ?  > P > When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it makes one wonder, > if the same could have been done with VAX. > ' > What was the fastest VAX chip made ? a >  > O > Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all designs foryK > VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me aI > couple thousands VAX chips ?   > L > If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were toI > provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest and O > greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly because the chip,-F > albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd with. > significantly better precision than before ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:16:17 -0500 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> % Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? 0 Message-ID: <svidnWLeioqV773dRVn-ug@comcast.com>  , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.& --------------0002060901080807030906009 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitr  C Well, it was many years ago, but I seem to recall that "faster and 2E cheaper" competing systems were selling like hotcakes and VAXen were rG not.  No matter how great the O/S was, the hardware was overpriced and  
 underpowered!l  C There may have been technical considerations as well but there was  I definitely a financial reason; they needed faster hardware to run VMS on  G in order to sell VMS and the VAX architecture simply could not do it.  nI Even using today's technology, the best Alpha chips would blow the doors a* off the best VAX chips that could be made.I I has been three or four years since I last booted a VAX;  I still own a nH VAXstation 4000/VLC and a MicroVAX 3100 but I may never boot either one  againh   JF Mezei wrote:   F >>>I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporating5 >>>current processor technologies would be dreamy :-) 	 >>>      i >>>t >AM >At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were theresO >compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urge toh( >adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ? >wO >The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length instruction settO >in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a fixed lengthi >instruction set ? > O >When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it makes one wonderm+ >if the same could have been done with VAX.  >o& >What was the fastest VAX chip made ?  >C >sN >Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all designs forJ >VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me a >couple thousands VAX chips ?  >pK >If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were to H >provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest andN >greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly because the chip,E >albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd witho- >significantly better precision than before ?  >  r >s  & --------------000206090108080703090600) Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-asciie Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bita  ? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">b <html> <head>I   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">d   <title></title>h </head>a' <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">hB Well, it was many years ago, but I seem to recall that "faster andD cheaper" competing systems were selling like hotcakes and VAXen wereK not.&nbsp; No matter how great the O/S was, the hardware was overpriced and  underpowered!<br>w <br>B There may have been technical considerations as well but there wasE definitely a financial reason; they needed faster hardware to run VMSiD on in order to sell VMS and the VAX architecture simply could not doL it.&nbsp; Even using today's technology, the best Alpha chips would blow the4 doors off the best VAX chips that could be made.<br>K I has been three or four years since I last booted a VAX;&nbsp; I still own E a VAXstation 4000/VLC and a MicroVAX 3100 but I may never boot either 
 one again<br>  <br> JF Mezei wrote:<br>a> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid401FEED5.E7C9885D@istop.com">   <blockquote type="cite">     <blockquote type="cite">V       <pre wrap="">I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporating2 current processor technologies would be dreamy :-)       </pre>     </blockquote>    </blockquote>u   <pre wrap=""><!---->L At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were thereN compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urge to' adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?t  N The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length instruction setN in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a fixed length instruction set ?d  N When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it makes one wonder* if the same could have been done with VAX.  % What was the fastest VAX chip made ? o    M Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all designs forsI VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me al couple thousands VAX chips ? r  J If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were toG provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest andaM greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly because the chip,tD albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd with, significantly better precision than before ?   </pre>
 </blockquote>n </body>d </html>l  ( --------------000206090108080703090600--   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:18:02 -0800 3 From: Alan Frisbie <Usenet01REMOVE@Flying-Disk.com>*% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?L. Message-ID: <4020727A.6060007@Flying-Disk.com>   Sue Skonetski wrote:  G > Speaking of VAX chips I have a few that I keep that I got from one ofnE > the VAX teams, folks saw them at the boot camp (and I made two intoy% > earings)   Nope I am not a geek ;')-   Codswallop!    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:37:22 -0500g* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?r) Message-ID: <402076DA.205E080F@istop.com>d   Sue Skonetski wrote:< > JF if I actually had any rights for VAX I would keep them.  R Geez, and there I was thinking you were a very generous person ... :-) :-) :-) :-)  G > Speaking of VAX chips I have a few that I keep that I got from one of E > the VAX teams, folks saw them at the boot camp (and I made two intos# > earings) Nope I am not a geek ;')>  N But you're married to a geek, right ? So those earings would be to please your husband, right ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 05:27:32 GMT % From: Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net>t% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? 3 Message-ID: <slrnc210m2.6j8.rivie@Stench.no.domain>t  K In article <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIOEEACMAA.tom@kednos.com>, Tom Linden wrote:tA > There is no reason why VAX architecture couldn't run as fast asrB > Pentium.  Alpha was a foolish adventure.  My expreience suggestsD > that it takes more-or-less two ticks of alpha to equal one of VAX.  F That's pretty much the experience I had, as well. However, it was also+ easier to make an Alpha go fast than a VAX.e  I AFAIK, the fastest VAX processor would be the NV5 family, of which I have(D experience with the NV5+; the NV5+ is mostly pin-compatible with the8 21064. IIRC, it was capable of running with a 7ns clock. -- n
 Roger Ivie rivie@ridgenet.net- (Rated a 10 on the Fox Scale of Forth-Hatred)    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:00:58 -0500a( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?e, Message-ID: <40208A9A.6090403@tsoft-inc.com>   Richard B. Gilbert wrote:   E > Well, it was many years ago, but I seem to recall that "faster and *G > cheaper" competing systems were selling like hotcakes and VAXen were  I > not.  No matter how great the O/S was, the hardware was overpriced and o > underpowered!  > E > There may have been technical considerations as well but there was  K > definitely a financial reason; they needed faster hardware to run VMS on aI > in order to sell VMS and the VAX architecture simply could not do it.  lK > Even using today's technology, the best Alpha chips would blow the doors  , > off the best VAX chips that could be made.K > I has been three or four years since I last booted a VAX;  I still own a  J > VAXstation 4000/VLC and a MicroVAX 3100 but I may never boot either one  > againr >  > JF Mezei wrote:t > G >>>>I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporating76 >>>>current processor technologies would be dreamy :-)     No, it would not..    N >>At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were thereP >>compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urge to) >>adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?0     Really oversimplified:  N Today's CPUs use various techniques to allow pipelining, out of order, branch H prediction, and such.  The VAX was designed before these practices were K developed, and the architechure wasn't very compatable.  A MOVC5 is a nice  L instruction, and does considerable work for a single assembler instruction. S That same MOVC5 would destroy everything a modern processor design is trying to do..  F The last N-VAX CPUs used various tricks to break down the complex VAX Q instructions to allow simpler instructions which were more compatable with newer SL techniques.  They worked quite well, but in general wouldn't compare to the P performance of Alpha.  I'm talking about Alphas produced in the same timeframe. Q   Later Alphas were much faster.  At the time I ran some tests, and an N-VAX did aS well with character work, but get to integer work, and there was a vast difference.h    P >>The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length instruction setP >>in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a fixed length >>instruction set ?a >>P >>When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it makes one wonder, >>if the same could have been done with VAX. >>' >>What was the fastest VAX chip made ?      " N-VAX at somewhere around 100 MHz.    O >>Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all designs foroK >>VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me at >>couple thousands VAX chips ? s    2 I doubt a couple thousand would be cost effective.    L >>If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were toI >>provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest andeO >>greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly because the chip,sF >>albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd with. >>significantly better precision than before ?    H There can be problems when the die size shrinks.  Usually not difficult A problems, but the cost of qualifying the CPU isn't insignificant.r  Q There are still PDP-11 systems in use today.  A small market, but profitable I'd eO guess.  Some people don't want to be in small markets.  Need I mention HP 3000?a  J DEC could have set up a downsized VAX business.  A box something like the J MicroVAX 3100 model 98, which resembled a short tower PC.  Design it with O generic PC parts, PCI bus, support for PCI bus in VAX/VMS, a Q-BUS slot, or an rQ adapter to use a Q-BUS card with a PCI slot, or even PCI cards in place of Q-BUS gQ cards.  (Note, an adapter or slot would be better as there were so many types of cO Q-BUS cards.)  In short, a box which could replace many of the old VAX systems.o  J Wouldn't be necessary, but process shrinks could have increased the CPU's K capabilities to some extent.  The key thing is that the customers would be oL people who just want to continue doing what they have been doing, not those  looking for more.s  P They would have sold these systems to people who's old VAX broke, or became too J hard/expensive to maintain.  They could have gotten rather competitive on O pricing, remember, many parts would be generic PC parts.  The embedded market, <M process control, and such could have then continued using VAXs indefinitely. b Instead we got Affinity.  :-(e     Dave   -- c4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:30:39 +0100e From: jf.pieronne@laposte.netD< Subject: www.pi-net.dyndns.org and vmspython.dyndns.org down2 Message-ID: <bvpav4$nj5$1@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr>   Hi all,e  B A power outage has just kill the system disk of my workstation :-(  N So the two sites www.pi-net.dyndns.org and vmspython.dyndns.org are currently  down.e  3 I will try to fix this during the forthcoming days.v   Sorry for any inconvenience.  
 Jean-Franoisr   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.068 ************************