1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 04 Jun 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 309       Contents:* CFtpFileFind::SetCurrentDir into vms fails maximum number of bad clients?" Re: maximum number of bad clients? maximum number of bad clients? Re: My Boot Camp trip report2 Re: OT: Sun release 8-socket/16-way SMP X64 server0 Re: speeding up LAVC with switch instead of hub?D RE: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)$ Wanted:MAIL.MAI structure definition  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 14:47:30 +0200! From: "Geler" <geler@Ilans.co.il> 3 Subject: CFtpFileFind::SetCurrentDir into vms fails 1 Message-ID: <e5uh5a$dsu$1@news2.netvision.net.il>   D I use CFtpFileFind::SetCurrentDir in an open session from my PC. TheL function always fails. Can someone demonstrate this navigation with a syntax that is compatible to VMS?   Thanks   Geler    ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 10:58:35 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)' Subject: maximum number of bad clients? $ Message-ID: <e5uecr$l86$1@online.de>  % I'm making progress in fighting spam.   = If I know an IP address is a spammer, I like to add it to the G Bad-Clients list, since this is less overhead for my system even if the F message gets rejected later since relaying is turned off, the usernameC doesn't exist on my system etc.  However, there are apparently some C limits here (I didn't find them in the docs, but rather in posts to ? comp.os.vms).  How much of the following is true for TCPIP 5.4?   H    o  The Bad-Clients: list in SMTP.CONFIG is limited to 512 characters.D       They don't have to all be on one line if the continuation line       starts with a tab.  ?    o  One can have more than 512 characters by having multiple         Bad-Clients: entries.   4 How many multiple Bad-Clients: entries can one have?  H Most spam is dictionary-attack spam to non-existent users (fortunately, H most are 12 characters or less, so Symbiont-Checks-Deliverability: FALSEI gets rid of these) or relays to a domain I don't accept mail for (I have  C relaying disabled).  Much of these come from the same IP addresses.   F With real spam (i.e. spam messages to legitimate users), the messages H seem to come from a wide range of IP addresses.  Probably, the spammers I are using infected PCs to do the spamming.  It's obviously too much work  + to continually update the Bad-Clients list.   F Of course, this is what RBLs are for.  However, one needs to make sureA that the RBLs one uses are up and working.  So, what one needs is E something like a RRBLL (real-time (real-time black-hole list) list).  I OK, it wouldn't have to be real time, but I'm thinking of something like  F a web page which is updated more frequently than SMTP_CONFIG.TEMPLATE.  I I like to have some documentation (OPCOM is fine) even for mail which is  H rejected for known reasons, both to make sure things are working and to H have the IP addresses and times so that I can report them.  Is an OPCOM 1 generated if an address is found on the RBL list?   7 Are the free RBLs?  Which ones do folks here recommend?    ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:26:30 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)+ Subject: Re: maximum number of bad clients? $ Message-ID: <e5ug15$nh3$1@online.de>  D In article <e5uecr$l86$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de3 (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:    J >    o  The Bad-Clients: list in SMTP.CONFIG is limited to 512 characters.F >       They don't have to all be on one line if the continuation line >       starts with a tab. > A >    o  One can have more than 512 characters by having multiple   >       Bad-Clients: entries.  > 6 > How many multiple Bad-Clients: entries can one have?  D Or, rather, is it the case that multiple Bad-Clients entries have a D TOTAL length of 512, i.e. this is only another way of avoiding long B lines (which one can always do with a tab at the beginning of the  continuation lines).  ? What contributes to the 512 limit, other than the IP addresses  2 themselves?  Commas?  Spaces?  Tabs?  Line breaks?   ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:02:44 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)' Subject: maximum number of bad clients? 2 Message-ID: <06060409024432_2022872F@antinode.org>  P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  6 > How many multiple Bad-Clients: entries can one have?      I have around 2000.  H > With real spam (i.e. spam messages to legitimate users), the messages J > seem to come from a wide range of IP addresses.  Probably, the spammers K > are using infected PCs to do the spamming.  It's obviously too much work  - > to continually update the Bad-Clients list.   E    When I get junk e-mail, I normally look up the IP address range at G arin.net (or ripe.net, or apnic.net, or wherever), and add the whole IP G address range for the sender to my Bad-Clients list.  Eventually, I see > a reduction in junk from blueyonder.co.uk, China, charter.com,@ comcast.net, hinet.net, interbusiness.it, rr.com, shawcable.net,H swbell.net, rima-tde.net, t-dialin.net, tpnet.pl, wanadoo.fr, and so on.  C    Before a couple of weeks ago, when the recent (seven-month-long) H deluge of e-mail bounce messages dried up, I did go through the file andF comment-out many of the smaller blocks (/20 and smaller, as I recall),G because with more than 1000 connection attempts per hour, my XP1000 was 6 spending all its (CPU) time handling SMTP connections.  . > Of course, this is what RBLs are for.  [...]  F    You seem to assume that a compromised Windows system is acting as aG normal open relay, instead of some other kind of e-mail-sending drone.  E Try Telnet to port 25 of a system which sent you junk, and see if you  can connect to it.  K > I like to have some documentation (OPCOM is fine) even for mail which is  J > rejected for known reasons, both to make sure things are working and to J > have the IP addresses and times so that I can report them.  Is an OPCOM 3 > generated if an address is found on the RBL list?   8 %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM   4-JUN-2006 09:11:22.05  %%%%%%%%%%%# Message from user TCPIP$SMTP on ALP F TCPIP-W-SMTP_CLNTINRBL, client IP address 218.0.22.26 matched RBL list  9 > Are the free RBLs?  Which ones do folks here recommend?       I seem to be using:  : RBLs: relays.ordb.org, dnsbl.sorbs.net, combined.njabl.org  @ > What contributes to the 512 limit, other than the IP addresses4 > themselves?  Commas?  Spaces?  Tabs?  Line breaks?  H    I don't care.  Mine are all short.  Of course, this may contribute to
 slow parsing.   H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  3    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org 4    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:19:17 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG% Subject: Re: My Boot Camp trip report 0 Message-ID: <00A56B38.0926D3E3@SendSpamHere.ORG>  n In article <1149348661.093815.29110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Sue" <susan_skonetski@hotmail.com> writes: >  > G >What happens in the hallways after the sessions end is even more under E >NDA because we are freinds more than anything else, and there are no C >NDA that could cover that.  But honestly sitting and chatting with C >folks in the bar or outside the bar when it got to full was pretty C >great.  Picture's for blackmail aside of which I am sure there are H >hundreds of me and hopfully no tape recordings.  I am sure if there wasH >one person in the bar that was not part of the boot camp they felt leftG >out because we were having such a good time.  They did however run out E >of Guiness by the end of the week (again) and I had them order extra  >this year.   ' How does this always happen! :rolleyes:   I OK.  Next year, my home Guinness draught setup hits the road to bootcamp.    --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM              5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 06:06:22 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> ; Subject: Re: OT: Sun release 8-socket/16-way SMP X64 server ) Message-ID: <op.tamhcwrnzgicya@hyrrokkin>   6 On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:30:10 -0700, Dave Weatherall  =  ! <djw-nothere@nospam.nohow> wrote:   G > Thanks fo the link Tom. We get ever closer to stating down the Charon E > route. I will get around to getting Simh working at home (and work) @ > but for the company/customer stuff we'll need a 'professional' > (paid-support) product. I Send me a note offline and I can tell you about one I have running under=    a minimal Linux system.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:24:04 -0400. From: "Carl Friedberg" <frida.fried@gmail.com>9 Subject: Re: speeding up LAVC with switch instead of hub? I Message-ID: <890539d90606040824m79ec7199w4a49732bb80ba0d4@mail.gmail.com>    > B > Ok, basic question here: can a VAX saturate a 10 mbps ethernet ? >   D Doesn't matter. It will make a hub-connected network very busy, even if it does not get "saturated".   C Without beating a dead horse too much, if you are using a hub, then B all the traffic generated by each device is passed to every device> connected to that hub. This will cause the network to becomingA unusable long before you get to the 100% bandwidth  (true 10mbps, * or about 1.2mbytes) because of collisions.  I A switch will help out, because it will isolate the traffic (in this case A especially) strictly to the two devices involved, once the switch ? learns that each port is connected to just one MAC address (one D device). That's one of the big advantages of using a switch. It doesD make monitoring all activity on the network slightly more difficult,) but throughput will definitely be better.   ? Furthermore, since you are (IIRC) mixing devices (some 10, some ? 100), and you expect the traffic between two of the 10 nodes to A be "heavy", the switch should allow the remaining devices to have > nearly full bandwidth available to them, assuming they are not/ trying to communicate with the busy 10 devices.   
 Good luck,   Carl   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:05:11 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> M Subject: RE: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users) T Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B86840150A76E@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----3 > From: Dave Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com]=20  > Sent: June 3, 2006 10:21 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com = > Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating=20  > potential VMS users) >=20 > Main, Kerry wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- : > >> From: Mark Berryman [mailto:mark@theberrymans.com]=20 > >> Sent: May 31, 2006 3:33 PM  > >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com@ > >> Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating=20 > >> potential VMS users)  > >>" > >> norm.raphael@metso.com wrote:? > >>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote on=20  > >> 05/25/2006 10:39:32	 > >>> AM:  > >>>  > >>>  > >>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:  > >>>>4 > >>>>> In article <e54907$ljp$1@reader1.panix.com>,: > >>>>>   John F <john@pleaseSeeSigForAddress.com> writes: > >>>>>  > >>>>> > > >>>>>> OP seems, in reply to your query, rather annoyed thatA > >>>>>> nobody's willing to take on his brilliant idea for free.  > >>> [snip] > >>> 8 > >>>> Unix runs faster than VMS on comparable hardware. > >>> 5 > >>> I just cannot let that statement go unremarked. G > >>> Unix may run faster, but without the reliability, so "comparable" H > >>> is as always dependent on the business problem needing a solution. > >>> One man's meat....D > >> I have done a number of head to head performance comparisons=20 > >> of Unix vs. VMS,=20B > >> usually on the same hardware.  Unix never won.  This would=20 > >> have been in the VAX=20A > >> days and a few years into the Alpha days.  I have not had=20  > >> reason do to any=20D > >> recently.  However, neither have I seen anything to indicate=20 > >> that the results=20 > >> would now be different. > >> > >> Mark Berryman > >> > >=20 > > Agreed.  > >=20E > > A couple of years ago (V7.3-2 timeframe), some *informal* testing ? > > compared Tru64 UNIX web type application benchmarks with=20  > OpenVMS on theB > > same HW. The informal results were that OpenVMS performance=20 > was about 5%> > > better in some areas and about 10% less in other areas.=20 > >=20? > > And while Tru64 did not have the market share that other=20  > UNIX's had, I G > > do not think there are very many people (including competitors) who < > > would not admit that Tru64 was (is) among the highest=20 > performing UNIX  > > solutions available. > >=20 > > Regards  > >=20 > > Kerry Main > > Senior Consultant  > > HP Services Canada > > Voice: 613-592-4660  > > Fax: 613-591-4477  > > kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom  > > (remove the DOT's and AT)=20 > >=208 > > OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. >=20J > A VMS engineer, perhaps privately so I won't mention specifics, wrote=20B > that many times the VMS engineers passed on attempting to use=20 > some Alpha=20 H > capabilities that T64 did incorporate for speed.  He indicated that=20. > speed wasn't the highest priority.  I agree. >=20 > --=20 6 > David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450@ > Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com > DFE Ultralights, Inc.  > 170 Grimplin Road  > Vanderbilt, PA  15486  >=20   David,  < As stated in earlier note, while default speed is a definiteG consideration (XQP etc), the default VMS parameters are typically built E for a trade-off of speed *and* reliability, high security, and "don't  break previous things".=20  B VMS has built in the option of being more like UNIX default with aC number of different options i.e. setting RMS default for write back B caching (sysgen parameters), fast path, turning off disk highwater marking etc.  F Point is that when both UNIX and VMS are setup and tuned appropriatelyF on the same HW, there is not much difference in performance. UNIX winsG in some areas, VMS wins in others. As always, you can usually tweak the G application or benchmark so that one is shown to be the leader over the  other.   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:05:54 +0400 U From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" <zzLaishev-@-DeltaTelecom.zz.RU-please-remove-zz-for.reply> - Subject: Wanted:MAIL.MAI structure definition ? Message-ID: <59680856B8F1DE023E94FE9998BFD0C1@NNTP.DeltaTel.RU>   
 Hello All!  F 	I looking for "legal" structure definition of the file MAIL.MAI, I'd H like to write some application to automaticaly repairing VMS mailboxes. % I found nothing in the starletsd.tlb.      	TIA.    --   Cheers, Ruslan. D +---------------------pure personal opinion------------------------+C   RADIUS Server for OpenVMS project - www.starlet.spb.ru/radiusvms/ >   ICQ: 319518233, Skype: SysMan-One, Mobile: +7 (901) 316-3222   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.309 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                        D /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1>Q >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1.c
 <<< PASV? >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,9,33)l
 <<< LIST >>> 150 List started.s >>> 226 Transfer completed.,C <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1 Q >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1. 
 <<< PASV? >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,1