1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 14 Aug 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 451       Contents: Re: Alpha remembrance day  Re: Alpha remembrance day  Re: Alpha remembrance day  Re: Alpha remembrance day  Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS Re: I should'a known better!  Multinet's _BG: Driver and IPsec$ Re: Multinet's _BG: Driver and IPsecF Not now Kato! (Was Re: Official: Do not try to write UWSSs in C crap!)2 Re: Official: Do not try to write UWSSs in C crap!9 Re: OpenVMS Freeware CD listings available online (again)   Re: Products in Operating System  Re: Products in Operating System" [VMS] Products in Operating System& Re: [VMS] Products in Operating System& Re: [VMS] Products in Operating System& Re: [VMS] Products in Operating System  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 14 Aug 2006 05:18:22 -0700- From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> " Subject: Re: Alpha remembrance dayC Message-ID: <1155557902.385592.234940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Bill Todd wrote: > Andrew wrote:  >  > ...  > 4 > > Why keep repeating the same sorry tired mantra ? > H > I'm sorry that you seem to find the truth tiresome, moron - but as youD > ought to be able to divulge from some of the material to which you6 > responded, you're not an audience that I care about.  ; Which truth are you refering to exactly, yours or reality ?  >  > > I > > Alpha grew initially because it was new, it was quick and with things J > > like the VEST program it was relatively easy to move apps from VAX/VMSG > > to Alpha/OpenVMS. It died because the mistakes made by DEC prior to H > > Alpha's introduction created a climate in which it could not attractH > > enough software or market share to sustain it after the honeymoon of > > the initial introduction.  > G > Sure, Andrew - the honeymoon period explains it all, just like it did F > with Itanic's initial acceptance (not) - despite the ease with whichF > IA32 software could run there without even something like VEST being > necessary. > @ Ohh come on Bill even you must grasp the weakness of this point.  D When Alpha was introduced it clearly led VAX in terms of performanceE and price so there was a real incentive to move.  It also led all the D other CPU architectures in terms of per CPU performance so there was? also an incentive to move onto the Alpha platform from outside.   F Roll forward a decade and Itanium had none of the speed advantage thatF Alpha had in fact you could buy a faster system running Alpha from theC same vendor HP and if you wanted IA32 compatibility you could buy a  faster system from anyone.  G Itanium never had a honeymoon period because it never won out on any of E the dimensions that cause customers to buy systems. The Merced launch A was a complete flop mainly because the one thing that Itanium was F supposed to have going for it, CPU performance it did not have at all.  F However no one not even a ex Sun employee like myself would claim thatA Alpha wasn't that fastest CPU on the planet when it was launched.   G Alpha's problem was that because of DEC's mistakes it had no supporting 
 ecosystem.   > > F > > Alpha sales initially went up to a pretty reasonable 10-12% market< > > share, fell in the latter half of the 1990's to below 5% > I > For the reasons I suggested, of course - reasons based on actual events * > rather than on your 'honeymoon' fantasy. >   > So what are the actual events you would like to introduce ????   Come on Bill   >   and then > > started to rise. > J > Yet another blow to your fantasy, which offers no explanation whatsoever > for such a turn-around.   F Really how about Compaq finally having some one ot two OK platforms toD support Alpha ? The ES40 was introduced in 1999 as was the DS seriesE these modesl at least gave Compaq a competitive low to mid range (ish  in the case of the DS).   D The demise of Pyramid, Sequent and to an extent SGI also gave Compaq' access to customers without a supplier.  > 9 >   By the time Alpha did start to claw back share it was 
 > > too late,  > G > Too late for *what*, idiot?  Too late to rise?  But you just admitted I > that they *were* rising, despite at best luke-warm support from Compaq.  >   ' Again you miss the point spectacularly.   C Market condidtions changed, customers moved from make to buy, ISV's F like Oracle who used to support 10's of hardware platforms took an axeG to their platform list. NT began to increase market share, Linux on x86  began to increase market share.   C Why would any ISV want to support the so so Alpha Platform when the G resources required to do this could be re-deployed to support Linux and 
 NT on x86.  E Having 10% market share at the beginning of the 90's would have given F Digital at least the right to talk to ISV's about port and support, at= the end of the 90's that didn't even get them an appointment.     . > > consolidation, industry standard platforms > E > Surely an ex-Sun bigot like you considers Unix to qualify as such a H > standard, and (not entirely by coincidence) Tru64 on Alpha was growingM > far faster than its Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX competition during that period.  > G And you call me an idiot. Of course it was growing faster it had got to E such a low base that a one percent increase in market share was a 20% @ market share growth. Sun, IBM and HP duking it out in the 25-35%D territory would have had to grow share at 7-8% to match Tru64 market
 share growth.   I > But, again, that doesn't fit the fantasy you're attempting to pawn off, ) > so by all means let's not deal with it.  >    Yawn  E The only fantasy here is the Bob Palmer killed Alpha one, the reality G is much more complicated as it generally is and DEC's management before 5 Palmer had more to do with killing Alpha than Palmer.    > ...  >  >   WhenG > > you are 3rd or 4th in a market which has 5 or 6 vendors things look / > > much better than when you are 4th out of 4.  > G > Don't assume that your audience is as incompetent as you are, Andrew. F > When you enter a market later than the competition, it takes time toB > catch up (especially when your early steps are as compromised byJ > ambiguity as Alpha's early Unix steps were).  There's nothing wrong withB > being 4th out of 4 as long as your growth rate promises a betterJ > position in the future and as long as you're profitable.  Both were true > of Alpha and Tru64.   ) You appear to be making the assumptions.     regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Aug 2006 05:38:51 -0700- From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> " Subject: Re: Alpha remembrance dayB Message-ID: <1155559131.290935.94030@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>   JF Mezei wrote:  > > Andrew wrote: K > > > Alpha grew initially because it was new, it was quick and with things L > > > like the VEST program it was relatively easy to move apps from VAX/VMSI > > > to Alpha/OpenVMS. It died because the mistakes made by DEC prior to J > > > Alpha's introduction created a climate in which it could not attractJ > > > enough software or market share to sustain it after the honeymoon of > > > the initial introduction.  >  > J > Olsen was kicked out because DEC was having problems.  So Palmer did notC > inherit a healthy Digital. He inherited a Digital that was losing ( > momentum fast, but still had momentum. > H > Palmer had the opportunity to put Digital back into the fast track andE > become a leader again with Alpha. Instead, Palmer faltered and made F > matters worse for DEC and Palmer failed to leverage the potential ofG > Alpha which was a great opportunity that had been presented "ready to , > serve" to Palmer as he took over the helm.  F The whole Alpha strategy was devised when DEC was the key player in ITD platform business after IBM.  The overreaching grandeur of the AlphaE strategy represented DEC's view of itself and their importance to the ! industry in the mid to late 80's.   F It might have actually worked if Alpha had started earlier and had not? gone through 1 or 2 still births before final conception. DEC's ? position in the mid to late 90's seemed very strong and had DEC G announced Alpha in the same timeframe as say POWER but as an end to end C platform then they may have had the pull to attract the design wins # they needed to make Alpha a sucess.   E As it was Alph happened too late, Digital was mortally wounded by the E delays in Alpha, the 9000's series, mistakes had been made over their D UNIX and ISV strategy and they were losing money. The pull had gone.  G Palmer didn't improve things but he was delt a terrible hand much worse D in fact than people initially thought, the Hudson FAB being one of aC number of structural issues that were harly public knowledge in the 8 early to mid 90's when Palmer could have made an impact.    J > Palm,er treated the installed base and a cash cow and then turned aroundI > and wanted to kill the cash cow, using the money to turn Digital into a  > Microsoft reseller.   B How do you think Palmer was going to get Microsofts attention longE enough to keep them fully supporting the NT on Alpha a strategy which  he had inherited.   @ Has it never occured to you that the demise of All In One was anD inevitable consequence of DEC trying to do Alpha/NT ?  Do you reallyB think that Microsoft would have partnered enthusiastically with anE vendor that was producing a viable competitor to Office their highest  margin product ?  F The reality is that one of Palmers biggest mistakes was not killing NTG on Alpha the day he started. It diverted resources from the more viable B Alpha platforms, confused partners and ISV's, generated negligable@ revenues and forced Digital to make unplatable decisions to keep" Microsoft a now key partner sweet.   Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:12:21 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> " Subject: Re: Alpha remembrance day, Message-ID: <44E0AEF4.ADF7A446@teksavvy.com>  
 Andrew wrote: G > The only fantasy here is the Bob Palmer killed Alpha one, the reality I > is much more complicated as it generally is and DEC's management before 7 > Palmer had more to do with killing Alpha than Palmer.   ? I disagree. Prior to Palmer, DEC management failed to grasp may D oppportunities and turned Digital into a legacy uncompetitive vendor/ that was trying to milk its existing customers.   G Palmer was given an essentially clean sheet and he could have fixed the F problems that had gotten DEC into trouble. He could have used Alpha toF essentially relaunch Digital. He had all the tools at his disposal, he> had the power to really change Digital to make it competitive.  B Instead, he used the shareholder's goodwill to slightly change theB corporate logo (round dot on the i and slightly different shade ofE colour) and when that didn't work, he started to fire people left and G right after every quarterly financial report showing bad news, and also 3 started to slash the software ecosystem around VMS.   C Read up "Elephants CAN Dance" by Lou Gerstner. IBM was in far worse E shape than Digital, yet, Gerstner was able to turn the company around C big time exactly by stopping the slash and burn that had begun just  before him.     E Both IBM and Digital had become uncompetitive because of their prices E and attitudes towards customers. Firing a gazillion employees doesn't H magically reduce prices on your price list. But it does prevent you from2 making sales when you no longer had a sales force.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:27:42 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> " Subject: Re: Alpha remembrance day, Message-ID: <44E0B28A.ED3A6160@teksavvy.com>  
 Andrew wrote: H > The whole Alpha strategy was devised when DEC was the key player in ITF > platform business after IBM.  The overreaching grandeur of the AlphaG > strategy represented DEC's view of itself and their importance to the # > industry in the mid to late 80's.   < Prior to Palmer, there was no Alpha "strategy". There was anH architecture under development with great technological improvements and/ a chip architectured for growth and the future.   > The business side of Alpha only began when Alpha started to be) commercialised and that was under Palmer.     G > As it was Alph happened too late, Digital was mortally wounded by the & > delays in Alpha, the 9000's series,   E Digital's problems were no hardware, it was price. Digital refused to F admit that the price of computing was going down faster than expected,H refused to admit that the "PC" could ever compete against a VAX etc etc.B So it still charged $6000 for the C compiler when Microsoft sold a= complete C development environment for a few hundred dollars.   D There was nothing wrong with VAX performance, IF the prices had beenB lowered accordingly to match the price/performance ration of otherH vendors.  Instead, Digital kept their prices artificially hight and madeE sure their lower end machines could not be used by high end customers G becayuse it still expected its customers to pay megabucks for expensive @ computers. It decided to milk a few customers instead of selling2 competitively priced systems to lots of customers.    I > Palmer didn't improve things but he was delt a terrible hand much worse F > in fact than people initially thought, the Hudson FAB being one of aE > number of structural issues that were harly public knowledge in the : > early to mid 90's when Palmer could have made an impact.  F The Hudson FAB, at the time Palmer was given Digital's keys, was stillE potentially a success. It was under Palmer when the FAB really became S opperational that its potential was not realised due to internal politics/policies.   D > How do you think Palmer was going to get Microsofts attention longG > enough to keep them fully supporting the NT on Alpha a strategy which  > he had inherited.     ? Look, it isn't complicated: When Microsoft came out with NT, it F supported NT in a lot of platforms , edging itself in case any of themG became really popular. (remember that at the time, it wasn't clear that $ the 8086 could survive much longer).  H Had Digital marched on and started to produce competitively priced AlphaH boxes compared to PCs (perhaps with just a slight markeup like Apple's),E it is quite possible that Alpha could have become popular enough that ' Microsoft would have fully embraced it.   F Digital, of course, failed to make Alpha popular, and Microsoft wasn'tG intereted in a niche market, especially after the 8086 started to scale % up to full 32 bits and higher speeds.     B > Has it never occured to you that the demise of All In One was an8 > inevitable consequence of DEC trying to do Alpha/NT ?   A Weeks before Palmer had announce he was selling out to Microsoft, H Digital had announced it was porting ALL-IN-1 to NT and to Digital Unix.$ That port was, of course, forgotten.    D > think that Microsoft would have partnered enthusiastically with anG > vendor that was producing a viable competitor to Office their highest  > margin product ?    F Hence the reason why so many governments have taken Microsoft to courtD over its monopolistic practices. But Digital should have stood up toE Microsoft. Digital didn't need Microsoft's permissions to do hardware F support of wintel boxes (something which was actually doing well), andE Digital didn't need Microsoft's blessing to sell software support for  Microsoft Windows.  F Palmer sacrificed its own limbs in order to impress Microsoft thinkingG that one had to impress "God" in order to help God. Digital didn't need D to impress Microsoft in order to provide quality worldwise MicrosoftC Windows support, something which was actually helping Microsoft. It H isn't as if Digital was asking Microsoft for a favour here, it was doingH Microsoft a favour. And when you do a favour, it is the other guy who is' supposed to do the sacrifices, not you.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:26:03 -0400 ) From: "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> ' Subject: Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! ) Message-ID: <ebptlb$35p$2@n4vu2.n4vu.com>    Michael D. Ober wrote: > That's called democracy.  C Don't confuse freedom with democracy.  They're not interchangeable.    --  A St. John, who would also point out that the U.S. government is a   republic, not a democracy    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:13:58 -0600 6 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam>' Subject: Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! 4 Message-ID: <44e07717$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net>  @ "Gregory Morrow" <gregorymorrow@earthlink.net> wrote in message = news:1155511849.044460.269220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...  >  > WC Calm wrote: > 2 >> On 13 Aug 2006 16:11:46 -0700, "Gregory Morrow" >> >>  >> >> M >> >  JF is like the proverbial cockroach crawling out of the nuclear rubble  
 >> > or anD >> >especially pesky case of crabs that you just CAN'T get rid of... >> >>+ >> The visual, while humorous, is chilling!  >  > G > What' *really* "chilling" is the fact that JF is not locked up and he ! > is allowed to run around loose!  >    That's called democracy.  
 Mike Ober.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:43:27 -0000 B From: "David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com>' Subject: Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! 3 Message-ID: <fPadnU9Vc5QL433ZRVnygw@eclipse.net.uk>    Michael D. Ober wrote: > That's called democracy.  C Don't confuse freedom with democracy.  They're not interchangeable.    --  A  St. John, who would also point out that the U.S. government is a   republic, not a democracy     ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:56:59 -0600 6 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam>' Subject: Re: Don't miss J F's Meltdown! 6 Message-ID: <44e08f3c$0$10296$815e3792@news.qwest.net>  I Although technically not interchangeable, democracies, whether direct or  L indirect as in the US, tend to support individual freedom for significantly 6 longer periods of time than other forms of government.   Mike.   5 "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message  # news:ebptlb$35p$2@n4vu2.n4vu.com...  > Michael D. Ober wrote: >> That's called democracy.  > E > Don't confuse freedom with democracy.  They're not interchangeable.  >  > --  M > St. John, who would also point out that the U.S. government is a republic,   > not a democracy    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:39:01 -0400 # From: sol gongola <sol@adldata.com> % Subject: Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS 0 Message-ID: <1155566344.812068@nntp.acecape.com>   contracer11@gmail.com wrote: > sol gongola wrote: >> Steven M. Schweda wrote:  >>> From: contracer11@gmail.com  >>> F >>>>>>>    As usual, it would help to know the VMS and/or UCX version.
 >>>>>>> [...]  >>>>>    Still true.' >>>    Still true.  "UCX SHOW VERSION"?  >>> F >>>> In reality I don=B4t need access Internet, only send e-mails from >>>> VAX to Outlook Express.J >>>    In reality, you ask for what you want, not what you think will makeK >>> possible what you want.  Remember, if you knew what you were doing, you  >>> wouldn't seeking help here.  >>> L >>>    I believe that one doesn't send e-mail messages to Outlook [Express].L >>> Outlook [Express] fetches e-mail messages from a POP or IMAP server.  IfL >>> your UCX version has any of these, you might try the "Server components"& >>> menu.  Mine has both POP and IMAP. >>> L >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> 7 >>>    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org 8 >>>    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818! >>>    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547 N >> And with vms mail running, you wouldn't need smtp to get mail into the box. >>I >> tcpip imap is very recent on vms, even pop is only a few versions old. 2 >> What version of tcpip/ucx are we talking about? >>+ >> $ucx sho version -or- $tcpip sho version  >  > VAX001>> ucx sh vers >  > 4 >   DEC TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS VAX Version V3.3 >  > . >   on a VAX 4000-100 running OpenVMS V5.5-2H4 >     - UCX didn't include pop or imap way back then.   H You can get the Indiana University iupop3 package from a vms freeware cd! or search for it on the internet. 8 	It may be the one actually incorporated into vms tcpip.  F You can get the University of Washington pine package adapted for vms.' It includes both pop and imap services. 9 	http://server11.infn.it/pub/mailing/OpenVMS/pinevms.html 4 or	http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/vms-pine.html$ It may also be on a vms freeware cd.F When I used it, pine's imap was an old version incompatible with newer% versions of imap but pop worked well.    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Aug 2006 08:40:21 -0700 From: contracer11@gmail.com % Subject: Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS B Message-ID: <1155570021.540099.98720@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>   sol gongola wrote: > contracer11@gmail.com wrote: > > sol gongola wrote: > >> Steven M. Schweda wrote: ! > >>> From: contracer11@gmail.com  > >>> H > >>>>>>>    As usual, it would help to know the VMS and/or UCX version. > >>>>>>> [...]  > >>>>>    Still true.) > >>>    Still true.  "UCX SHOW VERSION"?  > >>> H > >>>> In reality I don=B4t need access Internet, only send e-mails from > >>>> VAX to Outlook Express.L > >>>    In reality, you ask for what you want, not what you think will makeM > >>> possible what you want.  Remember, if you knew what you were doing, you ! > >>> wouldn't seeking help here.  > >>> N > >>>    I believe that one doesn't send e-mail messages to Outlook [Express].N > >>> Outlook [Express] fetches e-mail messages from a POP or IMAP server.  IfN > >>> your UCX version has any of these, you might try the "Server components"( > >>> menu.  Mine has both POP and IMAP. > >>> N > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> 9 > >>>    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org : > >>>    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818# > >>>    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547 P > >> And with vms mail running, you wouldn't need smtp to get mail into the box. > >>K > >> tcpip imap is very recent on vms, even pop is only a few versions old. 4 > >> What version of tcpip/ucx are we talking about? > >>- > >> $ucx sho version -or- $tcpip sho version  > >  > > VAX001>> ucx sh vers > >  > > 6 > >   DEC TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS VAX Version V3.3 > >  > > 0 > >   on a VAX 4000-100 running OpenVMS V5.5-2H4 > >  >  > / > UCX didn't include pop or imap way back then.  > J > You can get the Indiana University iupop3 package from a vms freeware cd# > or search for it on the internet. : > 	It may be the one actually incorporated into vms tcpip. > H > You can get the University of Washington pine package adapted for vms.) > It includes both pop and imap services. ; > 	http://server11.infn.it/pub/mailing/OpenVMS/pinevms.html 6 > or	http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/vms-pine.html& > It may also be on a vms freeware cd.H > When I used it, pine's imap was an old version incompatible with newer' > versions of imap but pop worked well.   D In my job we have a e-mail server (Compaq W2K3 server), and if I setD route with this e-mail address could I send e-mails from vms to w2k3 server ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:02:27 GMT , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>% Subject: Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS . Message-ID: <n81Eg.30$s93.26@news.cpqcorp.net>   contracer11@gmail.com wrote:  F > In my job we have a e-mail server (Compaq W2K3 server), and if I setF > route with this e-mail address could I send e-mails from vms to w2k3
 > server ?  G    You can use a pop or imap client for OpenVMS, and you can then send  D email via whatever SMTP server you want.  This can be configured to G function exactly the same way as your typical Microsoft Windows client  & operates its mail.  As an SMTP client.  C    OpenVMS provides an SMTP server (with POP and IMAP servers) via  B TCP/IP Services, and the integrated SMTP client -- the MAIL SMTP% D transport image -- provided in the base system expects a local SMTP  server.   E    Unfortunately for those ISPs and organizations that use SMTP AUTH  H (ESMTP) or other such requirements, you cannot use the provided OpenVMS G system's SMTP% MAIL client except to connect to the local SMTP server,  A and you cannot connect the SMTP server via a port other than the  G expected port 25.  This means that the MAIL utility cannot be used for  I remote access to a remote SMTP server, save via a local SMTP mail server.   D    You can, however, use the Mozilla mail client, or any of various H other SMTP mail clients that have been ported to OpenVMS (and that have I been mentioned in this and other recent threads), to connect to a remote  H SMTP server, and submit and read your mail that way; to operate without E a local SMTP mail server.  This is how the Microsoft Windows clients  G operate with SMTP servers.  (This ignoring the Microsoft-provided mail  F clients can also operate via the Microsoft Exchange server protocols.)  G    Whether or not your company or your ISP allows remote SMTP/POP/IMAP  D access into its SMTP server (and how that is configured) is another G matter, and not one that anyone here likely knows details about.  (Nor  E whether or not you could access the SMTP server via whatever network  D connection you have, as companies and ISPs can block various ports. D Many ISPs tend not to allow outbound port 25 connections, as it's a D common path for spammers, botnets and infections.  Outbound port 25 E connections are thus quite often only allowed via the ISP's own SMTP   server(s).)    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:08:09 -0400 # From: sol gongola <sol@adldata.com> % Subject: Re: Enabling SMTP in VAX/VMS 0 Message-ID: <1155571693.132337@nntp.acecape.com>   contracer11@gmail.com wrote: > sol gongola wrote: >> contracer11@gmail.com wrote:  >>> sol gongola wrote: >>>> Steven M. Schweda wrote: ! >>>>> From: contracer11@gmail.com  >>>>> H >>>>>>>>>    As usual, it would help to know the VMS and/or UCX version. >>>>>>>>> [...]  >>>>>>>    Still true.) >>>>>    Still true.  "UCX SHOW VERSION"?  >>>>> H >>>>>> In reality I don=B4t need access Internet, only send e-mails from >>>>>> VAX to Outlook Express.L >>>>>    In reality, you ask for what you want, not what you think will makeM >>>>> possible what you want.  Remember, if you knew what you were doing, you ! >>>>> wouldn't seeking help here.  >>>>> N >>>>>    I believe that one doesn't send e-mail messages to Outlook [Express].N >>>>> Outlook [Express] fetches e-mail messages from a POP or IMAP server.  IfN >>>>> your UCX version has any of these, you might try the "Server components"( >>>>> menu.  Mine has both POP and IMAP. >>>>> N >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> 9 >>>>>    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org : >>>>>    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818# >>>>>    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547 P >>>> And with vms mail running, you wouldn't need smtp to get mail into the box. >>>>K >>>> tcpip imap is very recent on vms, even pop is only a few versions old. 4 >>>> What version of tcpip/ucx are we talking about? >>>>- >>>> $ucx sho version -or- $tcpip sho version  >>> VAX001>> ucx sh vers >>>  >>> 6 >>>   DEC TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS VAX Version V3.3 >>>  >>> 0 >>>   on a VAX 4000-100 running OpenVMS V5.5-2H4 >>>  >>0 >> UCX didn't include pop or imap way back then. >>K >> You can get the Indiana University iupop3 package from a vms freeware cd $ >> or search for it on the internet.; >> 	It may be the one actually incorporated into vms tcpip.  >>I >> You can get the University of Washington pine package adapted for vms. * >> It includes both pop and imap services.< >> 	http://server11.infn.it/pub/mailing/OpenVMS/pinevms.html7 >> or	http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/vms-pine.html ' >> It may also be on a vms freeware cd. I >> When I used it, pine's imap was an old version incompatible with newer ( >> versions of imap but pop worked well. > F > In my job we have a e-mail server (Compaq W2K3 server), and if I setF > route with this e-mail address could I send e-mails from vms to w2k3
 > server ? >   L It just occurred to me that ucx v3.3 may be too old to even have smtp in it.T See if @sys$system:ucx$config have an option to set up smtp (under client services)./ If it doesn't, you may have get smtp elsewhere. C You can get the freeware MX 4.2, probably from the VMS freeware cd. Q I think pine also comes with the smtp software so the whole pine package may give L you everything you need including a menu based email interface that supports sending/receiving attachments.  E Once configured you should be able to send emails to the windows box.    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Aug 2006 09:02:22 -0700- From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> % Subject: Re: I should'a known better! B Message-ID: <1155571342.274090.96940@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>  
 AEF wrote: > patrick jankowiak wrote: > > JF Mezei wrote:  > >  > > > William Webb wrote:  > > > G > > >>It was so utterly maddening that as long as the old system was in H > > >>place as a backup to the VRU, I used to say "Rumplestiltskin" as aJ > > >>menu choice to force it to drop down into the old Touch-tone system. > > >  > > >  > > > I > > > I had a system repeatedly tell me that I wasn't pronouncing my name  > > > right !!!! > > > K > > > I really do not understand why corporations are paying for such voice = > > > response software/hardware when customers despise them.  > I > Because they think it's "cool". The executives are thinking, "Look! Our F > computers can understand speech! It's like talking to a real human." > Yeah.  >   G How many times have we dealt with this. Trying to convince "management" E that just because something *can* be done doesn't mean it should. Too  often a losing battle.  G > Back in March I was shopping for a new bank since I had just moved. I B > tried the Wachovia ATM and it talked to me in a loud voice! VeryD > annoying. The result was that it took a lot longer to use it and ID > don't want other customers waiting in line listening in! I made my3 > displeasure known to the branch manager and left.  >   @ Speaking/Voice response ATM machine is one of the stupidest techG misapplications I've heard of. I mean, that's wrong in too many ways to  count.   > > > L > > > Interestingly, United airlines seems to respond to the command "human"@ > > > to transfer to an agent (but does not respond to "agent"). > >  > > http://gethuman.com/ > >  > > Hewlett-Packard  > > 800-474-6836 > > Say "agent" at each prompt.  > >  > > Patrick  >   G You need to be on a secure link to reach a real "agent". I've suspected C that companies that were hard to reach and difficult to do business ? with were really just fronts for.... wait, what's that whirling A sound.... and what are those dark shapes coming across my lawn???  :-)   G > Cool. I'll try these tricks next call! (including the Rumplestiltskin  > trick way above) >  > Here's my recent story:  > E > I've had some problems recently with Verizon DSL. Thursday night it D > didn't work. Upon attempting to connect I got "Error 629, port wasI > disconnected by remote machine." I tried their diagnostic program which I > told me my modem was dead. Tech support agreed but said it could be the I > cable. Went out to get a new cable, but that didn't work. Friday (while G > at work) I ordered a new modem. When I got home from work, everything H > was working fine! There was nothing wrong with the modem after all. ItE > was a Verizon DSL outage. So now I have to cancel my modem order on 	 > Monday!  > G > Also: After things were working, I tried Verizon's diagnostic program F > again and it STILL said the modem was bad! I asked one of their techI > guys what gives and he said it's just a program to give information. Uh  > huh.L > AUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! > ? > The phone calls themselves always start out with the annoying H > voice-response crap. And in one call I had to give my DSL phone numberD > 3 times. Isn't the first time enough? Don't computers talk to eachE > other nowadays? ;-) And wouldn't it make sense to display the phone ) > number on the human's computer monitor?   B Nothing destroys customer confidence in a high tech company like aC screwed up support system. The second time I'm asked for my account D number, I say that I gave it to the last person (or I keyed it in atE the request of the answering automaton), and ask what they're looking  at on their computer screen.  F Often, they actually have your account in front of them and are simplyF verifying it. Dumb procedure. Good procedure is to ask something else,B like your name and/or address, and to say "to verify your account,, please give me your name & address" or such.  E Sometimes the second (or subsequent) person hasn't received anything.  That is a screwed up system.  F If I've given a problem description to one person and get tranfered toD another, I always ask the new person to tell me what they know aboutD why I'm calling. Their answer to that question tells you quite a bit about their support system.    >  > You really just want to start E > with a human, of course. Except sometimes the human isn't that good 	 > either!  >   G Our area just went through a broadband cable system upgrade and it took E weeks before the company would admit they were having problems. Calls D to support yielded only instructions to "reboot everything". I don'tC know if it was support not understanding the problem or the upgrade $ people not giving support the facts.   > ) > Technology can't make up for stupidity.  >   F Or, as the old saw goes: The trouble with making something idiot-proof/ it that pretty soon idiots will start using it.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:55:07 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> ) Subject: Multinet's _BG: Driver and IPsec 1 Message-ID: <ebpkl6$lsi$1@news-02.connect.com.au>    Hi,   K I just had a disappointing glance through the latest VMS road map, and once 9 again found UCX's IPsec capability still some way off :-(   D Having said that, I've just (today) realized that Process Software's7 Multinet already advertises this functionality for VMS.    When was the release date?   Is anyone out there using it?   K Does anyone have VMS/Multinet/IPsec applications talking transparently over   TCP/IP sockets to Windows/IPsec?  K Is it truly transparent to the application/socket programmer? (these ports,  these addresses, GO!)?  + Is a simple configuration script available?   / Why didn't they do the same thing with TCPware?   K I've tested my software with UCX and TCPWare but not Multinet, but I'm sure H Process Software would rather die then allow a behavioural inconsistency+ between their various BG: offerings on VMS?   ! Is anyone else as ignorant as me?    Cheers Richard Maher  H PS. Is some smart arse would like to chime in with "The documentation isK quite clear on the subject" or "I found it with only one finger" or "I just H wait for posts like yours so I can, once more, sing 'I'm too sexy for myE shirt!'" then if you could take the time to mention chpt and verse of 1 provide a pointer then that would be just peachy.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:34:30 -0400 , From: "Richard Whalen" <WhalenR@process.com>- Subject: Re: Multinet's _BG: Driver and IPsec + Message-ID: <ebpu23$fp7$1@news.process.com>   > "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote in message+ news:ebpkl6$lsi$1@news-02.connect.com.au...  > Hi,  > H > I just had a disappointing glance through the latest VMS road map, and once; > again found UCX's IPsec capability still some way off :-(  > F > Having said that, I've just (today) realized that Process Software's9 > Multinet already advertises this functionality for VMS.  >  > When was the release date?  G IPSEC was included as part of MultiNet 5.0; the release notes are dated  June, 2004.    >  > Is anyone out there using it?   F I believe that some customers may be using it because we have had some questions about it.    > H > Does anyone have VMS/Multinet/IPsec applications talking transparently over" > TCP/IP sockets to Windows/IPsec?  I One of the things that makes IPSEC in MultiNet 5.0 difficult is that only  static keys are 4 supported.  Windows/IPsec requires automatic keying.  C We have done some work on automatic key exchange, but there was not L sufficient time to get it tested and documented for MultiNet 5.1; it will be part of MultiNet 5.2.    > F > Is it truly transparent to the application/socket programmer? (these ports, > these addresses, GO!)?  L Yes, it is transparent to the application/socket programmer, especially with
 the automatic H key exchange program in place.  An administrator still has to set up the security policies L (which systems require which types of security), and set up the key exchange program, butF once that is done the key exchange program will securely negotiate and
 exchange keys H with the remote system when a connection is opened, then the key will be used for theL communication for that connection.   The only thing that the application may notice is a # delay at connection initation time.  > - > Is a simple configuration script available?   F The documentation and examples for MultiNet V5.2 will include a simple
 configuration K script for the key exchange program (racoon) that will work between any two  systems thatK have had security policies defined.  The current documentation shows how to  set upE security policies and how to do manual keying.  See chapter 31 of the  Installation and Administrator's Guide.> http://www.process.com/tcpip/mndocs51/multinet_admin_guide.pdf   > 1 > Why didn't they do the same thing with TCPware?  > H > I've tested my software with UCX and TCPWare but not Multinet, but I'm sureJ > Process Software would rather die then allow a behavioural inconsistency- > between their various BG: offerings on VMS?   J Process Software tries to keep the BG: device offered in both MulitNet andL TCPware compatible with what is in TCP/IP Services.  When an incompatibility is7 discovered we work to fix the problem in both products.    > # > Is anyone else as ignorant as me?  >  > Cheers Richard Maher > J > PS. Is some smart arse would like to chime in with "The documentation isH > quite clear on the subject" or "I found it with only one finger" or "I justJ > wait for posts like yours so I can, once more, sing 'I'm too sexy for myG > shirt!'" then if you could take the time to mention chpt and verse of 3 > provide a pointer then that would be just peachy.  >  >    Richard Whalen Process Software   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:27:53 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> O Subject: Not now Kato! (Was Re: Official: Do not try to write UWSSs in C crap!) 1 Message-ID: <ebpq34$t31$1@news-02.connect.com.au>   	 Hi Steve,   G >    Watching you pound your head against the UWSS construction and its I > limitations isn't particularly entertaining.  (At least I don't find it , > entertaining.  Others might or might not.)  I So avert your precious bloody eyes and give my delicate ears a break from G your monotony! Most people find "block-sender" or "kill-file" useful in  these situations.   K Of course, in the world according to Hoff, Richard Maher is the only person G to ever deploy UWSSs on VMS and if he would just shut-up then you could H click your ruby-red slippers everything would be OK again. Everyone elseH including Rdb, Oracle, ACMS, Apache, Tier3, (And all those whose Steve'sK Doctor hasn't yet been able to instruct to just agree with everything Steve K says) are busy converting their UWSSs to Pseudo Device Drivers. It would be / ludicrous to even countenance any other option.   E >    Is it impossible to secure one of these UWSS images?  No.  Is it  > easy?  Not necessarily.    Here's a couple of mine: -  G Q: "Is it possible to secure a UWSS written in C and linked without the  /PROTECT qualifier?"  " A: On Alpha - Extremely difficult!  ( A: On IA64 - Architecturally impossible!  D See the text in the following Docs (As discussed in my initial post)L http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/83final/4548/4548pro_012.html#itn_priv_shr_sec   "The compiler ofE your choice might not offer a reliable method to do so; therefore; HP ( recommends protecting the entire image."   *THE COMPILER OF YOUR CHOICE*   K What is this? More "don't ask; don't tell" from VMS management? I can count G maybe 35 thousand compilers available on VMS so understandably you'd be H killing trees to list 'em. Or is it simply the wankers who tried to stopH everyone using Macro and Bliss when VMS moved from VAX to Alpha (and putL only C UWSS examples in sys$examples) are now are too ashamed to tell people3 that you simply can't do UWSSs safely in C on IA64?   H I've seen the extra syntax in Bliss but haven't seen anything special in Macro yet. .PSECT x,NOSHORT?   Cheers Richard Maher  J PS. Why are all the wrong people taking (being offered in the first place) VR?   9 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff-remove-this@hp.com> wrote in message + news:5U2Cg.1703$TG5.524@news.cpqcorp.net...  > G >    Watching you pound your head against the UWSS construction and its I > limitations isn't particularly entertaining.  (At least I don't find it , > entertaining.  Others might or might not.) > E >    Writing UWSS modules isn't easy, and particularly if the calling F > environment for the UWSS isn't what would be considered trustworthy.H > Sharing an address space with untrusted code isn't usually secure whenC > your security-relevant data is (also) (potentially) writable from I > user-mode code.   If all critical data and all critical code is stashed H > behind the memory management protections and if the data transitioningD > into inner-mode can be probed and verified, life is rather better. > J >    The relative difficulties here are the reason why I mentioned variousJ > other approaches when this discussion started, and why I usually mentionJ > alternatives whenever the UWSS discussion arises.  It's the reason why IF > also usually look to use pseudo device drivers or pseudo drivers and/ > ACPs, or server processes (daemons) and such.  > E >    Is it impossible to secure one of these UWSS images?  No.  Is it  > easy?  Not necessarily.  >  >    --  > G >    And I don't know that the full update for the UWSS references into J > RTLs made it in; I'd reported that back in April or so, and didn't catchE > the implicit assumptions around the implementation of EXE$ and SYS$ F > calls back then.  (The kernel versus the UWSS implementation for theI > routine; I too have created SYS$ calls that are outside the kernel, and F > I'm not the only engineer around to have created these.  Usage which< > unfortunately and obviously leads to some confusion here.) >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:56:41 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> ; Subject: Re: Official: Do not try to write UWSSs in C crap! 1 Message-ID: <ebpo8j$qm1$1@news-02.connect.com.au>    Hi Ian,   - > Do you mean this section curiously entitled  > ; > "3.5.2.1 Saving System Dumps" from the V8.3 release notes   & I don't know how I could've missed it!  # > LIB$GET_VM should be LIB$FREE_VM.   K You take 25 years to correct a documentation bug and still get it wrong :-(   I lib$Ret_vm should be lib$free_vm! If I can address the person responsible I for this "change" directly for a moment: - "You are an ignoramous who has L absolutely no business behind a keyboard! Everything you do, say and type isK to the detriment of HP and in particular VMS. I cannot begin to imagine how L you have survived so many head count reductions over the years, and can only, hope that the next one has your name on it."  L Still, at least *you* didn't use a SUN promo to advertise VMS so, I suppose,. redemption is not totally out of the question.  L And of course sys$scan_intrusion has a "SYS$" prefix, so all's OK there then *NOT*!   Cheers Richard Maher  + "Ian Miller" <ijm@uk2.net> wrote in message = news:1155047485.301735.161980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... - > Do you mean this section curiously entitled  > ; > "3.5.2.1 Saving System Dumps" from the V8.3 release notes  > J > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/83final/6677/6677pro_003.html#saving_dumps >  >  > V8.3 > H > The following changes should be made to the paragraph in Section 31.2,? > "Writing a Privileged Routine (User-Written System Service)":  > H > "As a protected image, your program does not have the entire operatingI > system programming environment at its disposal. Unless a module has the G > prefix SYS$ or EXE$, you must avoid calling it from an inner mode. In F > particular, do not call LIB$GET_VM or LIB$RET_VM from an inner mode.D > You can call OpenVMS RMS routines from executive mode but not from > kernel mode."  > I > LIB$GET_VM should be LIB$FREE_VM. You cannot call these LIBRTL routines E > directly, and you cannot call any routines that might now or in the E > future call these routines indirectly. This includes other routines C > within LIBRTL and the user-mode C library, among other libraries.  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:07:08 GMT F From: lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman)B Subject: Re: OpenVMS Freeware CD listings available online (again)- Message-ID: <052Eg.41$Wg6.26@news.oracle.com>   8 I've accessed the Freeware site from a point outside the6 company using a (not quite the most recent) version of< Mozilla on OpenVMS, and don't see any extraneous characters.  ? I had JavaScript turned off, which shouldn't make a difference.    Bart   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Aug 2006 09:14:08 -0700 From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk) Subject: Re: Products in Operating System C Message-ID: <1155572048.533185.272090@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   G As a slightly different issue but along the same lines, how come DECnet C Phase IV is considered to be a system-integrated product yet DECnet  Phase V is a layered product?    Steve    Stanley F. Quayle wrote:; > On 14 Aug 2006 at 16:44, Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:  > > VMS V8.3 is now the chance.  > C > You'll have to wait for V8.4.  V8.3 has been released.  The Field , > Test people already have the official kit. >  > --Stan Quayle  > Quayle Consulting Inc. >  > ----------: > Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX5 > 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA > > stan-at-stanq-dot-com   http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html+ > "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Aug 2006 10:21:19 -0700# From: "H Vlems" <hvlems@freenet.de> ) Subject: Re: Products in Operating System B Message-ID: <1155576079.747732.52650@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>   etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk schreef:   I > As a slightly different issue but along the same lines, how come DECnet E > Phase IV is considered to be a system-integrated product yet DECnet  > Phase V is a layered product?  >  > Steve   E Possibly historical reasons  for that. Once DECnet was a prerequisite : for clustering and that functionality was embedded in VMS.C IIRC DECnet before VMS V5.0 was a real layered product in the sense F that it came on its own TK50 tape. Or is this my memory playing tricks1 again and did that only happen to microVMS users?    Hans   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:44:33 -02006 From: eplan@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)+ Subject: [VMS] Products in Operating System * Message-ID: <44e0a871@news.langstoeger.at>  I May I rant again, that I don't find the current situation understandable?   M 1) TNT (Argus) is part of VMS. VMS V7.3-2 contains V3.2B, V8.2 contains V3.2D I There was then an additional product TNT (a PCSI kit) at VMS V7.3-2 times H in version V3.2C and later in V3.2D where you could upgrade TNT to V3.2CL (but - despite the name of the kit - not to V3.2D). If you install TNT V3.2DJ to VMS V7.3-2 you upgrade TNT from V2.3B to V2.3C, if you remove it later,M it keeps V2.3C (because the images don't get removed - they are part of VMS).   F But, if you install TNT V3.2D onto VMS V8.2 (but why, they are said toF contain the same version, don't they ;-), you would downgrade TNT fromI V3.2D to V3.2C. Sounds silly, but could happen quite easily when products & exists as LP and as part of the opsys.  H Do I need to deinstall TNT before VMS V8.2 upgrade. Would be better, butK no word in VMS V8.2 installation/upgrade manual about this. Can I deinstall I it after the upgrade? Maybe, but only because it doesn't remove anything?   H Please, if you include layered products in VMS, do it by packing it intoJ the OPENVMS platform kit (if you like), but keep the product name (so thatN one can eventually deleting it by PRODUCT REMOVE). VMS V8.3 is now the chance.    L 2) I still don't understand the reason for AVAIL_MAN_BASE or TDC_RT packagedK into OPENVMS. There is TDC and AVAIL_MAN_ANA/AVAIL_MAN_COL with surely many J contained files identical to these products. What if one installs the fullJ product. Will the castrated product in OPENVMS be implicitely removed? No.J But files will be changed. And if you remove the full products later. WillL the files on the system disk (from the castrated products) then be identical? to before the installation of the full product? Don't think so. ; So what is the real motivation for such castrated products?   M Can we have a more sound way of products, please? VMS V8.3 is now the chance. > (Like TDC can't be installed with TDC_RT installed or similar)    H 3) I assume that products like CDSA and KERBEROS (packaged into OPENVMS)J can be upgraded to a newer version (eg. install CDSA V2.1 onto VMS V7.3-2)H But as they are not contained in the VMS systems Software Rollout ReportI http://www.openvms.digital.com/openvms/os/swroll/VAROL.HTML I'm not sure. L (I think, KERBEROS V2.1 runs perfect on V7.3-2) Has anyone tried it already?    D 4) I still don't understand the reason for the platform kit OPENVMS.L It refers to some products (like CDSA, DECNET_OSI, DWMOTIF, TCPIP, VMS, ...)F Can it be removed? Why not, nobody refers to it. Can referred productsG be removed (like TCPIP)? Should be possible (as one could choose not to H install DECNET_OSI or MOTIF during installation) but what happens to theI platform kit OPENVMS then? Will it also be removed (what normally happens = when you remove a referred product)? Don't think so. But why? ? Or in other words, what is the platform kit OPENVMS really for?    TIA    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:18:59 GMT , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>/ Subject: Re: [VMS] Products in Operating System . Message-ID: <Dv0Eg.25$f83.14@news.cpqcorp.net>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:  O > Can we have a more sound way of products, please? VMS V8.3 is now the chance.   F    If this confusion wasn't already fixed, the next opportunity isn't F until the next product release; OpenVMS V8.3 may be new to the field, I but it's not an option here as it's already been constructed, documented  I and shipped.  We're working on remedial updates for V8.3, and on various  D new engineering work for V8.next.  V8.3 is closed and done and gone.  J > 3) I assume that products like CDSA and KERBEROS (packaged into OPENVMS)  <    These packages are within the platform kit.  (See below.)  A > Or in other words, what is the platform kit OPENVMS really for?   I    A platform kit contains various other PCSI kits.  A platform kit is a  H way to develop and manage and kit various software packages separately, 8 but to aggregate and to install them together as a unit.      --   D    I'll take a look into the TDC and TNT and related such, as it is F clear that there are some confusing version-number choices being made I here.   (I wasn't aware there were two different 3.2D kits around.)  But  E as with OpenVMS V8.3 itself, there's basically nothing that I can do  G here for anything referenced that's been shipped, short of potentially  E documenting it on a TDC/TNT web page somewhere.  I will see if I can  F provide information to the right folks to try to assist the choice of # version numbers for these packages.   I    I do know that there is a migration underway with these pieces, which  H may well lead to additional confusion.  (I'd posted some information in D a previous thread in this area back in June; around TDC and ECP and G related pieces.  TDC is where various performance-related products and  , pieces are going for their data collection.)  A    Or if you would prefer it, write something up describing your  H particular confusion, specifics, and providing your feedback here, mail A it to me, and I'll pass it along to the appropriate business and  I engineering managers for the area.  That way, the right folks in OpenVMS  D Engineering can read your own words.  (And if we really do have two ? different packages identified as 3.2D and without some form of  F additional characterization on the kit and/or its contents, then that - was, um, an inauspicious choice on our part.)    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:47:26 -0400 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com>/ Subject: Re: [VMS] Products in Operating System : Message-ID: <44E062CE.9708.F59B2FD@squayle.insight.rr.com>  9 On 14 Aug 2006 at 16:44, Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:  > VMS V8.3 is now the chance.   D You'll have to wait for V8.4.  V8.3 has been released already.  The 0 Field Test people already have the official kit.  
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------8 Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA < stan-at-stanq-dot-com   http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html) "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:49:41 -0400 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com>/ Subject: Re: [VMS] Products in Operating System ; Message-ID: <44E06355.28332.F5BC10D@squayle.insight.rr.com>   9 On 14 Aug 2006 at 16:44, Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:  > VMS V8.3 is now the chance.   B You'll have to wait for V8.4.  V8.3 has been released.  The Field * Test people already have the official kit.  
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------8 Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA < stan-at-stanq-dot-com   http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html) "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.451 ************************