1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 06 May 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 250       Contents: Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Re: Compressing backup file  Connection slowness to RSTS/E ! Re: Connection slowness to RSTS/E 8 Re: DCL versus Unix CLIs, was: Re: File output like UnixP Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re:  OT: IntP H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: Intels qP Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: InteP Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: InteP Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: Inte) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! ) Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses! - Re: Multi-core and SMP CPUs, threads and ASTs  Re: Nemonix Fast Ethernet Card- Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s # Re: Protecting windows from malware ) TAB character in DCL command-line editing - Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing - Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing - Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing - Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing - Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing - Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing  Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question  Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question  Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question  Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question  Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question  Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question  Re: to bob@instantwhip Re: X windows vulnerability  Re: X windows vulnerability   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 17:43:36 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)$ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file$ Message-ID: <e3g2s8$7af$2@online.de>  > In article <1146849711_3899@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> writes:   ; > Anyone familiar with doing compression on the a VAX, with < > regards to the speed? Would gzip or bzip2 be better/faster) > (which would probably lose attributes)?   I If you need to compress and save file attributes, ZIP is the way to go.   ! Get the latest, greatest version.   F Why not stick a faster machine with a big disk in the cluster and use $ that for backups and/or compression?   ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2006 14:20:25 -04003 From: Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> $ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file. Message-ID: <mdd4q04gwpi.fsf@panix5.panix.com>  ! Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> writes:   > > Replacing the whole machine, which does the job they want to= > do, just to be able to do backups also seems like overkill.   J No, it isn't.  Being able to back up a business-critical process is a good+ business case for obtaining a newer system.   9 > Backing up to another hard disk also doesn't get you an ) > "offsite" backup, in case of fire, etc.   H I think the suggestion for backup to a bigger, faster disk was as a stepF in the compression-and-backup-to-CD cycle, not a replacement for same.  C > I may end up replacing it with an Alpha, but before going through < > all the conversions necessary, I thought I'd try something > simpler first.  E No, getting the Alpha is the simple solution.  Saves your (presumably & expensive) time and gets the job done.   --  L Rich Alderson                                       | /"\ ASCII ribbon     |L news@alderson.users.panix.com                       | \ / campaign against |L "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."    |  x  HTML mail and    |L                          --Death, of the Endless    | / \ postings         |   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 11:25:44 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> $ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file) Message-ID: <op.s83b46fhzgicya@hyrrokkin>   D On Fri, 05 May 2006 11:26:45 -0700, Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> wrote:  1 > Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: A >> In article <1146849711_3899@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, Kevin Handy  >> <kth@srv.net> writes:= >>> Anyone familiar with doing compression on the a VAX, with > >>> regards to the speed? Would gzip or bzip2 be better/faster+ >>> (which would probably lose attributes)? J >>   If you need to compress and save file attributes, ZIP is the way to  ) >> go.  Get the latest, greatest version.  > 0 > Using zip 2.1. I there a more current version?   HERMES> run ZIP.VAX_EXE   Copyright (C) 1990-1999 Info-ZIP% Type 'zip "-L"' for software license. > Zip 2.3 (November 29th 1999). Usage: zip=="$disk:[dir]zip.exe"  ' There could be later, I haven't checked    HERMES> mcr GZIP.VAX_EXE -h  gzip.vax_exe 1.2.4 (18 Aug 93)   ditto.   > K >>  Why not stick a faster machine with a big disk in the cluster and use   ' >> that for backups and/or compression?  > $ > It's a single machine, no cluster. > < > Adding a large alpha just to do backups for a 3100/10 with/ > a 1gb and 4gb disk seems like overkill to me.   @ It doesn't have to be large.  A few hundred bucks will get you aA PWS600 (aka Miata) and for $40  or so, a Plextor 716A and you can  create CDs and DVDs  > > > Replacing the whole machine, which does the job they want to= > do, just to be able to do backups also seems like overkill.  > 9 > Backing up to another hard disk also doesn't get you an ) > "offsite" backup, in case of fire, etc.  > C > I may end up replacing it with an Alpha, but before going through < > all the conversions necessary, I thought I'd try something > simpler first. > J > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet   > News==----C > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!    > 120,000+ Newsgroups I > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption    > =----    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:26:45 -0600  From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> $ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file2 Message-ID: <1146852522_3925@sp6iad.superfeed.net>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: @ > In article <1146849711_3899@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, Kevin Handy > <kth@srv.net> writes:  >  > ; >>Anyone familiar with doing compression on the a VAX, with < >>regards to the speed? Would gzip or bzip2 be better/faster) >>(which would probably lose attributes)?  >  > K > If you need to compress and save file attributes, ZIP is the way to go.   # > Get the latest, greatest version.   . Using zip 2.1. I there a more current version?   > H > Why not stick a faster machine with a big disk in the cluster and use & > that for backups and/or compression?  " It's a single machine, no cluster.  : Adding a large alpha just to do backups for a 3100/10 with- a 1gb and 4gb disk seems like overkill to me.   < Replacing the whole machine, which does the job they want to; do, just to be able to do backups also seems like overkill.   7 Backing up to another hard disk also doesn't get you an ' "offsite" backup, in case of fire, etc.   A I may end up replacing it with an Alpha, but before going through : all the conversions necessary, I thought I'd try something simpler first.  Q ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- S http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups K ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 18:46:57 GMT , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>$ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file/ Message-ID: <B4N6g.190$3I7.20@news.cpqcorp.net>    Tom Linden wrote: F > On Fri, 05 May 2006 11:26:45 -0700, Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> wrote:1 >> Using zip 2.1. I there a more current version?  >  > HERMES> run ZIP.VAX_EXE " > Copyright (C) 1990-1999 Info-ZIP' > Type 'zip "-L"' for software license. @ > Zip 2.3 (November 29th 1999). Usage: zip=="$disk:[dir]zip.exe" > ) > There could be later, I haven't checked   C    Do check.  There are.  www.Info-Zip.Org is the canonical source.   F    I'll be pulling zip 2.31 or later, if and as available by the June  deadline for Freeware V8.0.   H    I also have the 64-bit-capable gzip ported over (and you've probably G seen the results of that port with various of the Integrity kits), and  I that port will obviously be shipping out on the Freeware, too.  (Various  D of the traditional 32-bit zip-like tools tend to fall over starting " around 4 gigabytes of input data.)   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 18:38:47 GMT , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>$ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file0 Message-ID: <XYM6g.189$_L7.188@news.cpqcorp.net>   Kevin Handy wrote:$ > VMS 5.5-2, MicroVax 3100, 8Mb RAM.  : > I am looking at creating a backup file, then compressing1 > it, copying it to a PC, and burning it to a CD. 7 > The test savesets I'm playing with are in the 200,000 : > to 400,000 block size. Real ones would likely be larger. >   I    1,200,000 to 1,400,000 blocks is the limiting size of a 600 MB to 700   MB CD-R disk, FWIW.   D    Compression is inherently a performance trade-off, and you don't D appear to have either the cycles or the storage that is needed here.  H    SCSI CD-R/RW recorders are and have been available, but are becoming G comparatively rare.  I have quite a bit of experience with the Plextor  D PlexWriter SCSI series and various open source CD recording code on I OpenVMS VAX (though this was back when I was regularly using OpenVMS VAX  E as part of various tasks), and these configurations can be gotten to   work without particular effort.       --   I    You have ancient system hardware, and its far beyond the depreciation  I horizon.  I'm sure this MicroVAX has served you well over the years, but  D this hardware is correspondingly slow, and there's nothing that can H really be done about the performance.  (Various the early MicroVAX 3100 G series boxes are back in the same basic vintage as the Pentium 150 MHz  E PC, after all.  Remember those?)  System tuning, beyond performing a  F periodic AUTOGEN pass with feedback, very seldom provides appreciable F benefit, and throwing (the appropriate and necessary) hardware at the = problem is almost always far cheaper and far more beneficial.   G    For your purposes, you can chew up what little cycles this MicroVAX  G 3100 has available for data compression, or you can look at moving the  H archival storage more locally to the system, or you can look to move to B a faster OpenVMS system.   (There have been recent discussions of G various used AlphaServer boxes in the newsgroup, and these will easily  @ run rings around this MicroVAX box.  Newer Alpha boxes can also E potentially get you access to integrated DVD recording capabilities,  H too.)  Used SCSI DLT devices may also suffice here, assuming you pick a D series that has media available.  (eg: don't pick the TK50 or TZ30, E unless you want to enjoy scrounging for used cartridges.)   There is  H also obviously VAX emulation, and there are various packages available. G   (HP OpenVMS Engineering and SRI support OpenVMS VAX operating on the   CHARON-VAX emulation package.)      --   G    If you are generally somewhat less risk-averse, you can potentially  E ship an unprotected BACKUP saveset over to the remote system, though  I that obviously also involves using a DVD or similar -- and this involves  I reconstituting the saveset attributes using a tool similar to the one in  A the tools area.  (I think you're going to have problems with the  F existing RESET_BACKUP_SAVESET_FILE_ATTRIBUTES.COM tool because of the E age of your OpenVMS VAX release, but there are variants of this tool  E that more directly patch the saveset attributes to recover the file.)       --   B    I'd strongly recommend and strongly encourage fully end-to-end H testing the data recovery path, no matter what particular choice(s) you G make here.  This helps avoid surprises.  Also consider what happens if  C you can't boot your MicroVAX 3100 series for some reason -- whether    ------------------------------   Date: 5 MAY 2006 18:57:10 GMT + From: Dave Greenwood <GreenwoodDE@ornl.gov> $ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file1 Message-ID: <5MAY06.18571007@feda34.fed.ornl.gov>   7 In a previous article, Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> wrote: $ > VMS 5.5-2, MicroVax 3100, 8Mb RAM.9 > Yes, it's an old machine, but it works fine for what it  > is doing.  >   : > I am looking at creating a backup file, then compressing1 > it, copying it to a PC, and burning it to a CD. 7 > The test savesets I'm playing with are in the 200,000 : > to 400,000 block size. Real ones would likely be larger. >    [snip]; > I am able to do this on the VAX using 'zip "-V" ...', but : > it is very, very, very slow. I'd guess it's at least 10X= > slower than creating the original backup saveset (I've only = > let it run for 2 hours before giving up on a test saveset). 3 > I'm not  sure the process would finish overnight.  >   6 > Zipping the individual files seems to be faster, but > still very slow.  = IIRC, older zips used default extension values which resulted ; in very slow zip file creations.  Given the savesets you're 
 using, try     $ SET RMS/EXTEND=n  2 where "n" is some large number - say 1000 or more.   Dave --------------9 Dave Greenwood                Email: Greenwoodde@ORNL.GOV H Oak Ridge National Lab        %STD-W-DISCLAIMER, I only speak for myself   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:16:26 -0400 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com>$ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file< Message-ID: <445B6C4A.12863.24912FAA@squayle.insight.rr.com>  * On 5 May 2006 at 11:39, Kevin Handy wrote:: > I am looking at creating a backup file, then compressing1 > it, copying it to a PC, and burning it to a CD.   F Why not use DECnet to back the machine across DECnet to a Linux box?  " ZIP the saveset there, and burn...   DECnet for Linux is at:   &   http://linux-decnet.sourceforge.net/  , Works like a champ.  And the price is right!
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------8 Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA < stan-at-stanq-dot-com   http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html) "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:57:11 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file, Message-ID: <445BAE10.76184E58@teksavvy.com>  E If the process is to be fully automated, does it really matter if the @ backup/zip take 2 hours instead of 20 seconds during the night ?  @ If your VAX is at 5.5-2, you may be not be able to put on modernC software/drivers on it , especially with regards to accessing large 
 disks etc.  D While the ZIP is running, you may wish to look at the process. Is itH wanting a huge working set and paging to file constantly, or is it truly CPU bound with little IO ?  ! Another thing you might consider:   F Split your backup into multiple operations, each grabbing part of yourE disk. After the first backup is done, you can spanwn a ZIP process to F work on that saveset while a new saveset if being produced for anotherG part of the drive. Having smaller savesets to ZIP may decrease the time F it takes, and the ability to run zip at same time as backup may ensure3 greater utilisation of all available CPU/IO cycles.   G And once a zip file has been generated, yu can delete the original save G set, and begin to transfer it to the PC. Once the transfer is done, you G can delete the .ZIP file. This way, your maximum disk block requirement E for the backs is greatly reduced because you can re-use the space for  the next save set/zip file.    ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:49:45 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)$ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file2 Message-ID: <06050514494495_20277BCE@antinode.org>   From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net>   $ > VMS 5.5-2, MicroVax 3100, 8Mb RAM.  +    That should be pretty slow, irregardful.   7 > The test savesets I'm playing with are in the 200,000 : > to 400,000 block size. Real ones would likely be larger.  E    Zip 2.x (like UnZip 5.x) is still small-file (2GB maximum).  Zip 3 H and UnZip 6 (currently available only in BETA source kits) fix this, butE only on non-VAX systems, where the (sufficiently recent) C RTL offers  large-file support.   ; > I am able to do this on the VAX using 'zip "-V" ...', but : > it is very, very, very slow. I'd guess it's at least 10X= > slower than creating the original backup saveset (I've only = > let it run for 2 hours before giving up on a test saveset). 3 > I'm not  sure the process would finish overnight.   F    There were some VMS-specific I/O speed improvements in Zip 2.31 andG UnZip 5.52, but I'd guess that you're CPU/memory-bound, not I/O bound.  > A little MONITOR /SYSTEM action might tell you more about yourD particular bottleneck.  Personally, I'd be out shopping for memory. @ What's WSMAX?  (Insert various other general performance-related questions here.)  ; > I could copy the uncompressed saveset to a windows PC and < > do the compression there, but wouldn't be able to automate' > it, and I would lose file attributes.   H    It's pretty easy to recover the important attributes of a BACKUP save> set file.  (And BACKUP itself deals with the individual files'? attributes.)  Surely there's some way to run a shell script (or F equivalent) on a Windows system, which would let you automate the mess	 this way.   ; > Anyone familiar with doing compression on the a VAX, with < > regards to the speed? Would gzip or bzip2 be better/faster) > (which would probably lose attributes)?   G    I haven't done any serious benchmarks, especially not with less than E 8MB of memory available.  Post-BACKUP, I wouldn't worry so much about D the file attributes, as restoring them is a minor inconvenience.  AsB bzip2 compresses better, I'd expect it to be slower, but I haven't@ measured it.  Memory frugality may matter more in your case than anything else.  0 > Using zip 2.1. I there a more current version?  
    AIIEEEE!!!   # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>   @ > Zip 2.3 (November 29th 1999). Usage: zip=="$disk:[dir]zip.exe" > ) > There could be later, I haven't checked   H    I just handled a complaint this week from a user who was getting fileE corruption from Zip 2.3 using "-V".  (Remember the arduous "Don't fix F it -- It's _supposed_ to corrupt files!" discussion here a while ago?)@ Anyone not using Zip 2.31 or newer is, in my opinion, asking for trouble.  I    Zip 2.32 is in progress, as is Zip 3.0, but no bets on release dates.  G (Zip 2.32 is not expected to add anything major to 2.31.  Bug fixes and  minor features.)    + From: Dave Greenwood <GreenwoodDE@ornl.gov>    >   $ SET RMS/EXTEND=n > 4 > where "n" is some large number - say 1000 or more.  C    This is one of the changes built into Zip 2.31.  (The default is F 16384, but an explicit SET RMS_DEFAULT will override this value.)  ButF if you're page-faulting like a crazy person, RMS parameters won't save you.  <    Note:  I'm not endorsing Zip in this situation over otherA possibilities, but it may make sense, and if used, there are some > pitfalls to avoid, and you seem to be in at least one of them.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  3    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org 4    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 17:22:04 -0700 ' From: glenn everhart <everhart@gce.com> $ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file& Message-ID: <445BEC2C.7090606@gce.com>   Steven M. Schweda wrote:! > From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net>  > % >> VMS 5.5-2, MicroVax 3100, 8Mb RAM.  > - >    That should be pretty slow, irregardful.  [...]   C Backup savesets XOR blocks really louse up compression. If you want 0 compression to work well, at least say /group=0.  < Of course a ZIP that saves file attributes works pretty well" too, and tends to be much smaller. Glenn Everhart   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:40:01 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: Compressing backup file/ Message-ID: <BuCdnYQ4RL0kYMbZRVn-tg@libcom.com>    Kevin Handy wrote:$ > VMS 5.5-2, MicroVax 3100, 8Mb RAM.9 > Yes, it's an old machine, but it works fine for what it  > is doing.   A A MicroVAX 3100 model 10 is rather old, as others have mentioned.   C Your statement about the system still doing the required job is an  B endorsement of VAX systems in general, and this one in particular.  H Regardless, compression is CPU intensive, and the model 10 really isn't  up to that task.  : > I am looking at creating a backup file, then compressing1 > it, copying it to a PC, and burning it to a CD. 7 > The test savesets I'm playing with are in the 200,000 : > to 400,000 block size. Real ones would likely be larger.  I Why do you need to compress the backup saveset?  Your statement seems to  G indicate that you have sufficient disk space for the savesets, or else  9 you wouldn't even have gotten to the compression problem.   A Why not just move the backup savesets to the PC as binary files?  F Nothing in the file changes, all you lose is the file attributes, and B either these can be known data or recovered from the saveset file.  H The big question from my perspective is what is intended for the backup  data.   + How often do you plan on reading that data?   G A compressed or even a non-compressed file on a CD may need to reverse  / all the steps in order to make the data usable.   # Does the MicroVAX have a CD reader?   3 Are you planning on reading the CD on the MicroVAX?   I Much more of your intentions must be known before reasonable help can be   offered.  < > Yes, I could put a CD burner on the VAX, but at this stage9 > I'm looking at generating the data first, and where the 8 > burner is located isn't my problem yet. Generating the9 > backup sets in a reasonable time is my current problem.  > 0 > This is for making periodic permanent backups.0 > They are currently using tape (various TLZ???)6 > but having serious reliability problems (dust, etc.)   Tape sucks!   : > The backup images will be too big to fit on a CD without6 > compressing them, and moving them to a PC would lose > file attributes.  D Compressed files on CD would not be readable by the MicroVAX before ( decompressing and restoring the saveset.  # The file attributes is a non-issue.   ; > I am able to do this on the VAX using 'zip "-V" ...', but : > it is very, very, very slow. I'd guess it's at least 10X= > slower than creating the original backup saveset (I've only = > let it run for 2 hours before giving up on a test saveset). 3 > I'm not  sure the process would finish overnight.   H You don't have the CPU power for compression.  If you must compress, do # it on a nice new dual core Opteron.   6 > Zipping the individual files seems to be faster, but > still very slow. > ; > I could copy the uncompressed saveset to a windows PC and < > do the compression there, but wouldn't be able to automate > it,    Why not?  # > and I would lose file attributes.   & As previously mentioned, not an issue.   > I really want to run7 > this as an overnight process with the resulting files 9 > available to burn in the morning, and the less the user 7 > needs to work the better (the easier it is to do, the ' > more often it is likely to get done).  > ; > Anyone familiar with doing compression on the a VAX, with < > regards to the speed? Would gzip or bzip2 be better/faster) > (which would probably lose attributes)?  >  > Any options/discussions? > I > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet   > News==----K > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+   > NewsgroupsM > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----   L Your plans on how to use the backup data when required need to be explained.   --  4 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    ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 2006 12:35:03 -0700 . From: "Julian Wolfe" <fireflyst@earthlink.net>& Subject: Connection slowness to RSTS/EB Message-ID: <1146857703.514320.16910@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   Hello!  C I'm a new user of VMS, and I've set up a virtual VAX with SIMH. I'm G running OpenVMS 7.3, and I use this system to remotely log into my real   PDP11/23plus at home via DECnet.  6 However, I'm having a slowness problem when I do a SET HOST/APPLICATION=RTERM 1.42   F It takes about 1.25 mins to get the "Connected via RTERM" message, andA then another 4 minutes to get the "RSTS/E 9.6-11"/"User:" prompt.   C This also happens in reverse.  If I try to connect to the sim'd VAX F from the PDP11, it takes one minute or so to get a connection confirm,C then about 4 minutes later I get a "Welcome to OpenVMS version 7.3" ? login, and then another 2 minutes later I get the login prompt.   G The wierd part of this whole thing is, if it's not interactive related, D it's just fine and fast - i.e. broadcast messages from either system come in immediately.  A This does not seem to happen between the real PDP and a simulated 6 version of it either, so this has to be a VMS problem.  # Any help would be most appreciated!    Thanks   Julian   ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 2006 14:42:24 -0700  From: ascott960@googlemail.com* Subject: Re: Connection slowness to RSTS/EC Message-ID: <1146865344.557067.114680@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   F I'm away from work for the weekend and can't check my notes, but thinkE it's something around MC NCP SET EXEC PIPELINE QUOTA, BUFFER SIZE, or F similar.    The default values don't always get the best from specificB protocols like RTERM;   some values aren't adjustable on Alpha VMSE systems IIRC.   We had problems a few years ago with slow file copies E from a Phase IV Alpha to RSX systems, where the same files moved much D more quickly from a VAX to the same RSX systems.    Because whateverF parameter it was, wasn't adjustable on an Alpha, we had to fiddle withD RMS buffer defaults when moving files from the Alpha to the PDP-11s.  E Someone here should probably be able to give you better advice on the C best values to set, but this may get you going with a Google search 	 meantime.    ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 2006 16:37:49 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>A Subject: Re: DCL versus Unix CLIs, was: Re: File output like Unix C Message-ID: <1146872269.637151.135640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: l > In article <1146616707.415114.288360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:" > >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:~ > >> In article <445656D0.A6669895@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> writes:% > >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:  > >> >> _ > >> >> In article <4452d96f@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> writes: 	 > >> >> > ; > >> >> >"Rob Brown" <mylastname@gmcl.com> wrote in message H > >> >> >news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0604281211340.19111@localhost.localdomain...	 > >> >> > K > >> >> >> > Why include Unix?  In Unix, no filename (or extension) has any P > >> >> >> > implicit meaning.  Applications may impart meaning, but the OS just > >> >> >> > don't care.
 > >> >> >>7 > >> >> >> I think that the same is true in VMS or RSX. 
 > >> >> >>	 > >> >> >  > >> >> >    .DIR 	 > >> >> >  > >> >>  > >> >> $ dir test.dir) > >> >> %DIRECT-W-NOFILES, no files found  > >> >> $ edit test.dir  > >> >> aaaaaa > >> >> ctrl-Z > >> >>   > >> >> Directory DATA1:[000000] > >> >>  > >> >> TEST.DIR;1 > >> >>  > >> >> Total of 1 file. > >> >>  > >> >> $ typ test.dir > >> >> aaaaaa > >> >> 	 > >> >> $  > >> >> O > >> >> A VMS directory may have to have a .DIR extension but that doesn't mean 8 > >> >> every file with a .DIR extension is a directory. > >> >E > >> >However, a .DIR;1 file without the "is a directory" flag set is ( > >> >generally considered a corruption. > >> >R > >> It may not be a particularly good idea but there is nothing in the OS to stopT > >> you creating such files and you don't need to perform any convoluted actions to > >> create such files. T > >> Hence the OS doesn't use .DIR;1 to provide an implicit meaning - that this is aS > >> directory. It also needs extra information in the form of the "is a directory" 
 > >> flag. > >  > > J > >But the OS *does* assume that legitimate directory files end in .DIR;1! > >  > O > Yes but that assumption is not by itself enough. As you yourself then go onto H > say "a .DIR;1 file has to have its directory bit set to be a bona fideG > directory ". A file having a .DIR;1 is a necessary but not sufficient O > condition for a file to be a directory. Hence an extension of .DIR;1 does not L > imply that a file is a directory though being a directory in the directoryP > heirachy does imply that a file must have a .DIR;1 extension (though see belowL > for where deleting a file with the directory bit set but not with a .DIR;1L > extension does seem to show that the OS considers that to be a directory).  E If you don't do silly things like create non-dir .DIR;1 files, .DIR;1 D implies itself as a directory. Yes, you can purposely go outside theC pardigm. But so what? How is this a problem? What *is* the problem?    > N > To my mind a filename or extension having an implicit meaning for an OS mustL > mean that a file with that filename or extension can only have one meaning7 > (which is obviously the meaning that the OS expects).   ? Can you give an example of a real system that meets this strict % crietrion? Do you want such a system?   N > If a filename or extension can have multiple meanings and the OS needs extraN > information (in this case the directory bit)  to determine that meaning thenP > there is no implicit meaning provided to the OS by that filename or extension.  7 But you can't use directories that don't end in .DIR;1.   I > >When given [AAA.BBB.CCC], RMS looks for [000000]AAA.DIR;1, and in that H > >file it looks for BBB.DIR;1, and in that file it looks for CCC.DIR;1.I > >It doesn't look for .THIS or .THAT; it looks for .DIR;1! It seems that I > >..DIR;1 is special in that RMS doesn't look for directory files of any ! > >other type and version number.  > > C > >Try renaming a .DIR;1 file to a different file type and see what I > >happens to your directory! It has to be .DIR;1. If that doesn't give a 4 > >special meaning to .DIR;1 I don't know what does. > > Q > To appear in the directory hierachy you are correct but the following indicates , > that VMS still considers it a directory :- >  >  > Imhub1:create/dir [.test]  > Imhub1:edit [.test]a.txt > aa >  > [End of file] < > 2 lines written to file SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000.TEST]A.TXT;1 >  > Imhub1:dir [.test] > ' > Directory SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000.TEST]  > 	 > A.TXT;1  >  > Total of 1 file.! > Imhub1:ren test.dir test.axp/lo @ > %RENAME-I-RENAMED, SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000]TEST.DIR;1 renamed to" > SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000]TEST.AXP;1 >  > Imhub1:dir/full test.axp > " > Directory SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000] > 7 > TEST.AXP;1                    File ID:  (8663,7392,0) / > Size:            1/69         Owner:    [1,1] % > Created:     5-MAY-2006 13:18:01.24 ) > Revised:     5-MAY-2006 13:34:01.61 (2)  > Expires:    <None specified>" > Backup:     <No backup recorded> > Effective:  <None specified> > Recording:  <None specified> > Accessed:   <None specified> > Attributes: <None specified> > Modified:   <None specified> > Linkcount:  1   > File organization:  Sequential > Shelved state:      Online" > Caching attribute:  WritethroughG > File attributes:    Allocation: 69, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0 M >                     No default version limit, Contiguous, MoveFile disabled $ >                     Directory fileK > Record format:      Variable length, maximum 512 bytes, longest 512 bytes 6 > Record attributes:  No carriage control, Non-spanned > RMS attributes:     None > Journaling enabled: None> > File protection:    System:RWE, Owner:RWE, Group:RE, World:E > Access Cntrl List:  None > Client attributes:  None >  > Total of 1 file, 1/69 blocks.  >  >  > Imhub1:del test.axp;*/loF > %DELETE-W-FILNOTDEL, error deleting SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000]TEST.AXP;12 > -RMS-E-MKD, ACP could not mark file for deletion4 > -SYSTEM-F-DIRNOTEMPTY, directory file is not empty  B Yes it is still a "directory", until you try $ DIR [TEST]! Then itB bombs. In a sense it is still a directory but it is in an unusable: state. It is a *broken* directory. It needs to be *fixed*.   What's your point?   >  >  > David Webb [...]  AEF    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 22:17:41 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Y Subject: Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re:  OT: Int , Message-ID: <445C073B.A5B39F75@teksavvy.com>   Tom Linden wrote: K > It is lamentable not because of anything to do with VMS, but it is simply  > unsound business judgement.   E Not really. The Wall Street Casino analysts are measuring HP based on E its wintel business to a large extent. They are measuring Hurd on his ? ability to make the wintel business more efficient/profitable.    . >  The margins aren't there.  They should haveH > followed IBM's model and found a Chinese (or orther) business partner.  H Letting go of the wintel business at a time when their BCS is going downD the drain with loss of 30% of its customer due to that unwanted IA64 thing is not a good idea.      >  I had hoped that Hurd > would have > been more astute.   C Hurd is the "new guy". He is being smart by not making any dramatic 	 changes.    A Also, HP already has much of its wintel gear done in China.  HP's " problem is distribution/execution.  G HP (and Compaq) are a bit like the legacy airlines. They worked hard to G build schedules that would look good on the reservation systems and ths C be listed first, even if it made the airline highly inefficient. HP G worked so far to have it products take the most place on store shelves  F even if it made HP's distriobution highly inefficient. Meanwhile, Dell< is selling direct on the internet and kicking HP's derrire.  E I have no problems with HP spending advertising money for its Wintel. $ You need to advertise your products.  D Now, if HP had ported VMS NSK and HP-UX to the 8086, we could all beF lumped in with that marketing since selling a VMS 8086 would help HP's; statistics as monitored by the wall street casino analysts.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 11:56:29 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> Y Subject: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: Intels q ) Message-ID: <op.s83dkfuozgicya@hyrrokkin>   I On Fri, 05 May 2006 11:32:43 -0700, George Cook <cook@wvnvms.wvnet.edu>    wrote:  K > It was sad to watch DEC destroy, mainly by its own hands, its large share F > of the higher ed computing market.  When our VMS systems are finallyF > retired, HP will have no presence here or at our member institutions/ > except for laser printers and one or two PCs.   < DJ H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC     By Donna Fuscaldo  Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRESJ In an effort to drive demand for personal computers, Hewlett Packard Co.   (HPQ) J is launching a multi-million dollar advertising campaign commencing next   week.   F In its first global integrated marketing campaign for H P s personal   systems group, the company will I spend several hundred million dollars on print, television and Internet   K advertisements aimed at highlighting people's relationships with their PCs.     J The campaign, called "The Computer Is Personal Again, " will begin May 9  I in conjunction with the roll out of new personal systems products, said   L Elizabeth Gillan, an H P spokeswoman. She said the television spots, which  J will run on network and cable TV, will focus on H P s desktop computers,  K notebook computers and workstations. The initial ads will highlight H P s    notebook computers. "  said Gillan. '  I H P is putting more emphasis on empowering the computer user, "It s not    just speeds and $ feeds and the commodity of the PC. "  G Following the TV spots, H P will start rolling out print and Internet   K advertisements as its new products come to market. The print ads will run   D in all the major newspapers, while the Internet ads will be found on  K Web sites such as Yahoo Inc. s (YHOO) Yahoo, Microsoft Corp. s (MSFT) MSN    and CNET Networks Inc. s (CNET)  CNET, to name a few.    L Gillan said this campaign will have a much bigger presence on the Internet  L than past efforts. She said the Internet provides a good avenue for H P to  H reach its customers, not to mention the company can be more innovative   with its ads online.  I In addition to traditional advertising, H P has also teamed with Viacom    Inc. s (VIA) MTV to create aI four minute show that will run on MTV s Web sites, as well as mtvU, the    network s college channel.    F Called "Meet or Delete, " the reality show will focus on what can be  K learned about someone based on what's on their hard drive. The first show   L will center around a young woman who is looking for a date and gets inside  : potential suitor's hard drives to see what they are about.    8 -By Donna Fuscaldo, Dow Jones Newswires; 704 371 4263;   donna.fuscaldo@dowjones.com --   (END) Dow Jones Newswires     ! May 05, 2006 11:46 ET (15:46 GMT)     , Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 17:42:01 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: Inte G Message-ID: <EcOdnXfuf9IxW8bZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Tom Linden wrote:    ...   > > DJ H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC >  >  > By Donna Fuscaldo  > Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRESK > In an effort to drive demand for personal computers, Hewlett Packard Co.   > (HPQ) K > is launching a multi-million dollar advertising campaign commencing next   > week.   C I can see how you got the topic title from the above, but the next  F paragraph (below) might have better piqued the interest of those here I who bemoan the fact that getting HP to spend *anything* on VMS promotion    has proven virtually impossible:   > G > In its first global integrated marketing campaign for H P s personal  ! > systems group, the company will J > spend several hundred million dollars on print, television and Internet M > advertisements aimed at highlighting people's relationships with their PCs.    SEVERAL    HUNDRED    MILLION    DOLLARS   I to promote their barely break-even PC business (note:  not even their PC  D server business) that's increasingly threatened by Asian cut-throat F competition on the one hand while it continues to fight ineffectively  against Dell on the other.  G Then again, given HP's 'commitment' to spend something like $1 billion  D per year on Itanic for the next 5 years, perhaps that's not so much E after all.  Of course, VMS itself probably won't get much visibility  & from that money, but what else is new?   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 17:14:15 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> Y Subject: Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: Inte ) Message-ID: <op.s83r9106zgicya@hyrrokkin>   H On Fri, 05 May 2006 14:42:01 -0700, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>   wrote:   > Tom Linden wrote:  >  > ...  > ? >> DJ H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  >>   By Donna Fuscaldo >> Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES I >> In an effort to drive demand for personal computers, Hewlett Packard    >> Co. (HPQ)H >> is launching a multi-million dollar advertising campaign commencing  
 >> next week.  > F > I can see how you got the topic title from the above, but the next  I > paragraph (below) might have better piqued the interest of those here   L > who bemoan the fact that getting HP to spend *anything* on VMS promotion  " > has proven virtually impossible: > J >>  In its first global integrated marketing campaign for H P s personal  " >> systems group, the company willL >> spend several hundred million dollars on print, television and Internet  K >> advertisements aimed at highlighting people's relationships with their    >> PCs.  > 	 > SEVERAL  > 	 > HUNDRED  > 	 > MILLION  > 	 > DOLLARS  > L > to promote their barely break-even PC business (note:  not even their PC  G > server business) that's increasingly threatened by Asian cut-throat   I > competition on the one hand while it continues to fight ineffectively    > against Dell on the other. > J > Then again, given HP's 'commitment' to spend something like $1 billion  G > per year on Itanic for the next 5 years, perhaps that's not so much   H > after all.  Of course, VMS itself probably won't get much visibility  ( > from that money, but what else is new? >  > - billI It is lamentable not because of anything to do with VMS, but it is simply H unsound business judgement.  The margins aren't there.  They should haveI followed IBM's model and found a Chinese (or orther) business partner.     Dell'sJ margins are consistently above 8% whereas HP's (in this sector) are less   than aG per cent.  I wonder what Lenovo's margins are?  I had hoped that Hurd   
 would have been more astute.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:10:09 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> Y Subject: Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC  [WAS Re: OT: Inte / Message-ID: <u4adndObhNkka8bZRVn-jA@libcom.com>    Tom Linden wrote:   > > DJ H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC >  >  > By Donna Fuscaldo  > Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRESK > In an effort to drive demand for personal computers, Hewlett Packard Co.   > (HPQ) K > is launching a multi-million dollar advertising campaign commencing next   > week.  > G > In its first global integrated marketing campaign for H P s personal  ! > systems group, the company will J > spend several hundred million dollars on print, television and Internet M > advertisements aimed at highlighting people's relationships with their PCs.   < Well now we know what the profits from VMS will be spent on.   --  4 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    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:48:42 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <gZudneDer_yQA8bZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Richard wrote:1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > 4 > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code8 > <4qednSGPBM-Z4MfZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >  >  >>Richard wrote: >  > M >>>Now where did I say that I was running the PCs in a Seattle area hospital?  >>9 >>The point is that it happens, even to the best of them.  >  > H > Again, non-sequitor.  I didn't say it *couldn't* happen to me.  I said > it *hasn't* happened to me.  >  > H >>>No, I've simply applied a few general and simple precautions to how I
 >>>use my PC.  >> >>So you claim.  >  > B > Yes, and unless you're offering to fly out and do an audit of my1 > machine, my claim is all that I can offer here.  > @ > Can you do or say any different about your Windows boxes?  No. > N > So why are you calling my reporting of facts about my machine "wild claims"? > K > I'm guessing because you're somehow threatened by the idea that a Windows G > machine could exist without being infected by malware if a few simple  > precautions are followed.   ; Let's just say that your claims border on the unbelievable.      --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:50:03 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <gZudneLer_zAA8bZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Richard wrote:  1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > 4 > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code8 > <4qednSCPBM_04MfZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >  >  >>Richard wrote: >> >>2 >>>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>> 5 >>>GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code 9 >>><A5-dnaDujt-yqMTZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly:  >>>  >>>  >>>  >>>>Richard wrote: >>>  >>> J >>>>>Email is the main transmission vector for Windows malware.  I haven't& >>>>>ever used my PC as a mail reader. >>>>7 >>>>That isn't the only place that is vulnerable. [...]  >>>  >>> C >>>Non sequitor.  I didn't say that email was the only transmission 
 >>>vector. >>8 >>Let's put it another way... Windows isn't that secure. >  > H > Another non sequitor.  I didn't say that Windows was secure.  I simplyG > said that in the 13 years I've had Windows boxes that I've never been  > infected with a virus.  G It is not a non sequitor.  It is a well known and public fact that you   seem to fly in the face of.      --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:51:49 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <gZudnR3er_xaA8bZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Dave Froble wrote:   > JF Mezei wrote:  >  >> Dave Froble wrote:  >>I >>> the malware on the internet.  Add a NAT router or other such firewall 0 >>> capabilities, and things become much safer.  >> >>H >> What the router can do is to open only ports that you know are using.K >> This prevents hackers from using Windows vulnerabilities on little known E >> ports since you have no real way of getting a list of processes on : >> widnows and what ports they are secretely listening to. >>D >> However, the router will not protect you from hacks affecting the# >> applications that you are using.  >>I >> For instance, when sending an email, you need accesss to outgoing port K >> 25. When a virus on your windows box is sending spam to everyone in your F >> address book, it is sending it out to the outgoing port 25 and yourH >> router has to let those messages out because it has no way of knowingL >> that this it is a covert virus running in the background on your machine. >  > D > WE weren't discussing containing an existing infestation, we were  > discussing preventing such.  > K > If I do not open up any ports for unsolicited packets, then the only way  H > such can get in is in response to a packet I sent out.  This at least ! > stops all unsolicited attempts.  >   H I have yet been able to prevent any malware from getting into my old PC.2 It just happens.  Even M$ knows this to be a fact.H Why else do they delay Vista?  Their claim to the delay is for security  reasons.     --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:53:24 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <gZudnRzer_y4AsbZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Richard wrote:  1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > 4 > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code8 > <4qednSOPBM9Z4MfZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >  > D >>Sorry, but all of your claims can not be believed considering the = >>problems that other users of M$ o/s have had problems with.  >  > E > Your counter claim is that Windows is so insecure that *every* user  > must be infected.  > G > If that were the case, the economic cost would be so high that people G > would simply stop using Windows and use... well, maybe they would use  > VMS.  I That's why it has been reported that M$ windows has cost the IT industry  + over $2billion in damages.  I rest my case.    > C > If you can't accept the idea that even *one* machine with Windows H > could exist uninfected, then this isn't a discussion based on rational> > analysis of facts, but instead is one of religious ideology.     --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:54:37 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <gZudnR_er_zyAsbZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Richard wrote:  1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > 4 > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code8 > <4qednSKPBM9J4MfZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >  >  >>Richard wrote: >  > : >>>I've done [scans] plenty of times -- never had a thing. >>> B >>>The people on this thread seem desperate to convince me that my+ >>>machine is infected when I know its not.  >>>  >>>Who's in denial here? >> >>Apparently, you are. >  > H > You're more than welcome to fly out here and audit my machine to proveG > me wrong.  Until then, you are denying the reality of my machine, not  > me.   G Don't be absurd.  Why do most mom and pop PC shops spend most of their  G time cleaning out windows PCs from malware and infestations of spyware  @ then?  It is a profitable business from that viewpoint at least.     --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:06:27 +0000 (UTC)1 From: legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!, Message-ID: <e3g7nj$3e3$1@news.xmission.com>  / [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]   2 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code6 <gZudneDer_yQA8bZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly:  < >Let's just say that your claims border on the unbelievable.  C The set of things that you're willing to believe doesn't change the  set of things that are true. --  E "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: 3           <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> ( 	    Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty,                <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>   ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:09:08 +0000 (UTC)1 From: legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!, Message-ID: <e3g7sk$3e3$2@news.xmission.com>  / [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]   ; koehler@eisner.aspm.encompasserve.org spake the secret code / <XMWUdMs84K9b@eisner.encompasserve.org> thusly:   G >   The current mean time for an uprotected Windows box to get infected ( >   on the internet is about 20 minutes.  F If by "unprotected" you mean for instance a Windows 98 or Windows 2000E system without any service packs or windows update applications, then  yeah, I believe that.   A Of all the big attacks on Windows itself (i.e. not "click here to D receive $500" link in an email that deploys something in response toE the click), the fixes were available before the exploits.  If you had E run Windows Update in a timely fashion, you would have been safe from  those attacks. --  E "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: 3           <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> ( 	    Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty,                <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>   ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:12:41 +0000 (UTC)1 From: legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!, Message-ID: <e3g839$3e3$4@news.xmission.com>  / [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]   ? Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> spake the secret code 6 <6a6ac$445b5d77$50db5015$8098@news.hispeed.ch> thusly:  ? >I'll second Rob Brown's request to Richard for details of the   >precautions he took.    Windows Update Don't read email on a PC$ Disable "Windows Messenger" service.   That's basically it.  F If you're browsing suspicious web sites, disable all active content inD the internet zone and selectively enable active content for specific sites. --  E "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: 3           <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> ( 	    Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty,                <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>   ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:16:09 +0000 (UTC)1 From: legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!, Message-ID: <e3g89p$3e3$7@news.xmission.com>  / [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]   2 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code6 <gZudnR_er_zyAsbZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly:   >Don't be absurd. [...]   E You would do better to follow your own advice.  You seem incapable of C allowing for the possibility of even one Windows machine that isn't @ infected with crap, which is just tantamount to saying that yourD religion doesn't allow for a point of view that denies the existence of dog.  --  E "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: 3           <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> ( 	    Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty,                <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>   ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:10:53 +0000 (UTC)1 From: legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!, Message-ID: <e3g7vt$3e3$3@news.xmission.com>  / [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]   ; Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> spake the secret code 9 <445aeeeb$0$67261$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> thusly:    >Richard wrote: 2 >> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>  > >> Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> spake the secret code< >> <445a857b$0$60785$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk> thusly: >>   >>   >>>Richard wrote:  >>> I >>>>Email is the main transmission vector for Windows malware.  I haven't % >>>>ever used my PC as a mail reader.  >>>  >>>Are you sure of that? >>   >>   >> Am I sure of what?  > I >That E-mail is that main transmission vector.  I have a hunch that that  C >spyware from browsing the Internet is an as big problem as E-mail.   A There will probably be a point where spyware via web browsing may F overtake email as the biggest source of infections, but since email isE still the most heavily used internet feature by PC users, I'm willing ; to bet that email is still the biggest transmission vector.  --  E "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: 3           <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> ( 	    Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty,                <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>   ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:14:28 +0000 (UTC)1 From: legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!, Message-ID: <e3g86k$3e3$5@news.xmission.com>  / [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]   ; Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> spake the secret code 9 <445b148c$0$60780$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk> thusly:   I >I find it extremely likely that there is spyware on your computer, that   >you have not discovered.   ? But apparently you can't admit the possibility that there isn't  spyware on my computer?   E I've run spyware scanners too.  Never turned up anything except a few  registry keys.  C People seem too anxious to broaden my statements to generalizing to C all PCs.  I am not saying anything of the sort.  I'm simply telling C you the facts of my PC.  If you can't accept those facts, then your F viewpoint is one of religious devotion to your opinion, not keeping an) open mind that evaluates new information.  --  E "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: 3           <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> ( 	    Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty,                <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>   ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:17:07 +0000 (UTC)1 From: legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!, Message-ID: <e3g8bj$3e3$8@news.xmission.com>  / [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]   7 Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> spake the secret code + <h9SdnUwQSsZVWcfZRVn-gQ@libcom.com> thusly:   7 >If I may ask, what OS, version, and what applications?   & 1993-1995: Windows for Workgroups 3.11 1995-1998: Windows 95  1998-2000: Windows 98 , 2000-2004?: Windows 2000 (until XP came out) 2004+: Windows XP  --  E "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: 3           <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> ( 	    Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty,                <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>   ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 2006 14:42:19 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!3 Message-ID: <YX4ejqRYrCMi@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <e3g7sk$3e3$2@news.xmission.com>, legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > = > koehler@eisner.aspm.encompasserve.org spake the secret code 1 > <XMWUdMs84K9b@eisner.encompasserve.org> thusly:  > H >>   The current mean time for an uprotected Windows box to get infected) >>   on the internet is about 20 minutes.  > H > If by "unprotected" you mean for instance a Windows 98 or Windows 2000G > system without any service packs or windows update applications, then  > yeah, I believe that.   B    I believe in this case that "unprotected" means out of the box.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:45:12 -0600 + From: Mark Berryman <mark@theberrymans.com> 2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!% Message-ID: <445b64f9$1@mvb.saic.com>    GreyCloud wrote: > Richard wrote: > 2 >> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] >>5 >> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code 9 >> <4qednSGPBM-Z4MfZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly:  >> >> >>> Richard wrote: >> >> >>F >>>> Now where did I say that I was running the PCs in a Seattle area  >>>> hospital? >>>  >>> ; >>> The point is that it happens, even to the best of them.  >> >> >>I >> Again, non-sequitor.  I didn't say it *couldn't* happen to me.  I said  >> it *hasn't* happened to me. >> >>J >>>> No, I've simply applied a few general and simple precautions to how I >>>> use my PC.  >>>  >>>  >>> So you claim.  >> >> >>C >> Yes, and unless you're offering to fly out and do an audit of my 2 >> machine, my claim is all that I can offer here. >>A >> Can you do or say any different about your Windows boxes?  No.  >>G >> So why are you calling my reporting of facts about my machine "wild   >> claims"?  >>L >> I'm guessing because you're somehow threatened by the idea that a WindowsH >> machine could exist without being infected by malware if a few simple >> precautions are followed. >  > = > Let's just say that your claims border on the unbelievable.   B Let's just say that they don't because I can make the same claims.  N I won't bore you with a long story that no one is likely interested in anyway,J but I was forced by circumstances to get a PC more than 15 years ago.  My M access to the internet predates that.  I do not use antivirus software for 2   reasons:  ) 1) It provides a false sense of security. Q 2) Every antivirus package I've tried interferes with the kind of work I must do.   L I have never been bitten by any of the nasty issues that typically afflicts N users of the software from Redmond.  This is due entirely to my own knowledge K and care.  How do I know I'm not infected?  The system has to be regularly  P scanned, work requires this.  That means I have a system with AV software on it / and it scans every PC in the house every night.   H My system does not run AV software, nor is it behind a firewall.  It is L however, behind a NAT device (which blocks any inbound attacks).  I haven't K been affected by any of the other means by which PCs get infected because,  O unlike the vast majority of PC users, I know how - and for the most part where  6 - Windows is vulnerable and I am careful how I use it.  M Of course, I also have an advantage that almost every other PC user doesn't.  ; When I want to browse the web, I use a VMS system to do it.   M Of course, none of my family has that advantage (each one has their own PC).  O However, because they sit behind a network that I maintain, and because only I  O have administrator access to their systems, they've never been infected either.   P So the point is, if you have the talent and are willing to make the effort, you M can keep a PC uninfected on your own.  Sadly, while this can work for a home  P network, it is wholly impractical for the business case and then rule number 1,  above, comes into play.   
 Mark Berryman    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:08:46 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <6_-dneIA1t-8asbZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Richard wrote:1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > 4 > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code8 > <gZudneDer_yQA8bZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >  > = >>Let's just say that your claims border on the unbelievable.  >  > E > The set of things that you're willing to believe doesn't change the  > set of things that are true.  . Which you haven't provided any real proof yet. Just claims.   --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:11:36 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <6_-dnRwA1t9WasbZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Richard wrote:  1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > 4 > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code8 > <gZudnRzer_y4AsbZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >  > K >>That's why it has been reported that M$ windows has cost the IT industry  - >>over $2billion in damages.  I rest my case.  >  > I > ...and reporters *never* exagerrate things into the realm of hyperbole.  >  > Just ask Dan Rather.  E Why ask him?  He doesn't know.  But I'm sure that the Geek squad can  5 tell you some very interesting stories that are true.  Otherwise, they wouldn't exist.    --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:13:44 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <6_-dnR8A1t_WZcbZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Richard wrote:  1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > 4 > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code8 > <gZudnR_er_zyAsbZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >  >  >>Don't be absurd. [...] >  > G > You would do better to follow your own advice.  You seem incapable of E > allowing for the possibility of even one Windows machine that isn't B > infected with crap, which is just tantamount to saying that yourF > religion doesn't allow for a point of view that denies the existence	 > of dog.   5 No, your claims are just too absurd to be believable. I I've seen these claims before, and lo and behold the user never new that  E his machine was infected.  Do you think your PC is going to tell you  H that you are?  Do you know precisely what processes are running on your E PC this very moment?  I've seen one virus prevent me from seeing the  H process list... and another that wouldn't let me into the autoscheduler.     --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:09:41 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>2 Subject: Re: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!: Message-ID: <6_-dnR0A1t_FasbZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   Mark Berryman wrote:   > GreyCloud wrote: >  >> Richard wrote:  >>3 >>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  >>> 6 >>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> spake the secret code: >>> <4qednSGPBM-Z4MfZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bresnan.com> thusly: >>>  >>>  >>>> Richard wrote:  >>>  >>>  >>>  >>> G >>>>> Now where did I say that I was running the PCs in a Seattle area   >>>>> hospital?  >>>> >>>> >>>>< >>>> The point is that it happens, even to the best of them. >>>  >>>  >>>  >>> J >>> Again, non-sequitor.  I didn't say it *couldn't* happen to me.  I said >>> it *hasn't* happened to me.  >>>  >>> K >>>>> No, I've simply applied a few general and simple precautions to how I  >>>>> use my PC. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So you claim. >>>  >>>  >>>  >>> D >>> Yes, and unless you're offering to fly out and do an audit of my3 >>> machine, my claim is all that I can offer here.  >>> B >>> Can you do or say any different about your Windows boxes?  No. >>> H >>> So why are you calling my reporting of facts about my machine "wild  >>> claims"? >>> F >>> I'm guessing because you're somehow threatened by the idea that a  >>> Windows I >>> machine could exist without being infected by malware if a few simple  >>> precautions are followed.  >> >> >>> >> Let's just say that your claims border on the unbelievable. >  > D > Let's just say that they don't because I can make the same claims. > I > I won't bore you with a long story that no one is likely interested in  	 > anyway, I > but I was forced by circumstances to get a PC more than 15 years ago.   C > My access to the internet predates that.  I do not use antivirus   > software for 2 reasons:  > + > 1) It provides a false sense of security. K > 2) Every antivirus package I've tried interferes with the kind of work I  
 > must do. > E > I have never been bitten by any of the nasty issues that typically  K > afflicts users of the software from Redmond.  This is due entirely to my  K > own knowledge and care.  How do I know I'm not infected?  The system has  K > to be regularly scanned, work requires this.  That means I have a system  H > with AV software on it and it scans every PC in the house every night. > J > My system does not run AV software, nor is it behind a firewall.  It is F > however, behind a NAT device (which blocks any inbound attacks).  I C > haven't been affected by any of the other means by which PCs get  K > infected because, unlike the vast majority of PC users, I know how - and  I > for the most part where - Windows is vulnerable and I am careful how I  	 > use it.  > F > Of course, I also have an advantage that almost every other PC user F > doesn't. When I want to browse the web, I use a VMS system to do it. > J > Of course, none of my family has that advantage (each one has their own G > PC). However, because they sit behind a network that I maintain, and  K > because only I have administrator access to their systems, they've never   > been infected either.  > F > So the point is, if you have the talent and are willing to make the K > effort, you can keep a PC uninfected on your own.  Sadly, while this can  J > work for a home network, it is wholly impractical for the business case 1 > and then rule number 1, above, comes into play.  >   9 So, you've never used OE to receive infected emails then?  Amazing.     --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 17:20:06 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>6 Subject: Re: Multi-core and SMP CPUs, threads and ASTsG Message-ID: <JfOdnYqrmpUXXMbZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > Bill Todd wrote: >> Bill Todd wrote:  > I >> ...to run the several 'worker' threads at normal (not AST) level, and   >> use the AST routines...   > A >   If y'all set out to mix POSIX-style threads and ASTs together   B Or any other threads which allow concurrent operation on multiple  processors, I think.     in theD > same application process, do definitely skim Ask The Wizard topic K > (6099).  Any active thread can get hit at any time with an incoming AST,  J > for instance, and you can definitely configure things such that you can I > have an active thread and an active AST executing entirely in parallel.   A The penultimate paragraph of that article seems to recommend the   approach that I described:  I "If you must use ASTs and threads, you will want to perform the absolute  G minimum processing within the AST routines, passing off all processing  I to threads via application-specific work request packets and interlocked  & queues or other re-entrant technique."   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 6 May 2006 06:33:52 +0100 2 From: "Dave Weatherall" <djw-nothere@nospam.nohow>' Subject: Re: Nemonix Fast Ethernet Card ? Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-lpFkwBFffniz@dave2_os2.home.ours>   F On Thu, 4 May 2006 19:02:57 UTC, Steve Matzura <number6@speakeasy.net> wrote:  2 > On 30 Apr 2006 09:40:35 +0100, "Dave Weatherall"# > <djw-nothere@nospam.nohow> wrote:  > . > >On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:04:14 UTC, JF Mezei ( > ><jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote: > > I > >> Oh, Nemonix does build new disks for VAX systems. It can build an RZ L > >> drive equivalent with 7 gigs on it. Those drives are mechanically brandH > >> new, but are fully compatible with the old drives. They also have aJ > >> 100mbps ethernet interface that plugs into the memory bus of some VAXS > >> systems. (you don't have the full 100mbps, but still much faster than 10mbps).  > > I > >Has anybody tried one of these. I saw a proposal the other day to use  G > >one to replace a Q-Bus FDDI adapter in a VAX 4108. Was a bit unsure  E > >(i.e. have no idea) of the comparitive throughputs. I've seen two  I > >quotes on the Nemonix site , about 4 MByte/sec and one 3MB/Sec. As JF  H > >says, still better than 10mb ethernet but how does it compare to the  > >Qbus/FDDI solution?   > E > I just came from a company that had 20 of these cards, and they all E > worked great ... until we upgraded to VAX/VMS V7.3.  The cards were H > used exclusively for a higher-speed interface for the Advanced SystemsH > Concepts product called Remote Shadowing Option (RSO) which my companyG > had been using for the past dozen-plus years quite successfully.  The C > confluence of the VMS upgrade and the introduction of the Nemonix F > cards introduced a flaw into the system that caused systems to crashA > when RSO was busy writing to the Nemonix card.  When I left the G > company at the end of March, Nemonix and HP were still working on the E > problem.  RSO was only the catalyst, but my man at Advanced Systems G > Concepts (in fact, the author of, if not the entire product, at least C > the VMS portion for both VAX and Alpha) was extremely helpful and D > supportive in assisting us in diagnosing the problem and giving HPH > good feedback and information via SDA.  Otherwise, even though you areH > right, the Nemonix cards couldn't go full bore 100mb, they were a damnC > sight better than the onboard 10mb devices; well worth the money.   E Thanks for that Steve. I'll pass the information on to my colleague.     --   Cheers - Dave W.   ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 06 14:32:43 EDT ) From: cook@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) 6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s! Message-ID: <$3xkgHges10u@wvnvms>   ` In article <ZbKeUJdCVNa6@malvm9.mala.bc.ca>, nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:/ > In article <4c16u0F13nb5vU1@individual.net>,  0 >     bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>  J >> And that is a matter of opinion.  While I like VMS, from the standpointL >> of student use Unix always wins in ease of use available (out of the box)K >> functionality. Argue it if you want, but I run both Unix and VMS systems   >> and get to see it first hand. > E >     Can you elaborate on this point? We taught first/second year CS H > courses on VMS for many years and ease of use was never an issue. WhatK > Unix features do you believe make it significantly easier for a computing  > neophyte to grasp? > - >> And, as another data point, back when PC's G >> were still rather rare, the university had a VMS machine for general J >> academic use.  We were the only department on campus with Unix systems.I >> We were constantly flooded with requests for accounts from students an < >> faculty who found the VMS system to not meet their needs. > F >    In what way did it not meet their needs? I suspect it was becauseF > they wanted to run software someone else had written for Unix and itG > wouldn't run "out of the box" on VMS. To me though this is more of an M > effect than a cause - had DEC been better about getting VMS into widespread I > use in universities ( and keeping it there ) back in the early 80s that K > might not have been such an issue - the software they wanted to run would H > have been written for VMS, not Unix, and the situation would have been > reversed.  > H >    I saw this happen myself at the time. In the early 80s many of the G > colleges around here used VMS in their CS courses. However the advent J > of relatively cheap systems from other vendors ( primarily Sun ) quicklyF > eroded this market. DEC refused to compete effectively against theseL > offerings with cheap VAXen (I had DEC reps at the time tell me they didn'tR > care what Sun did, they saw IBM customers as the market they wanted to go after) > O >    It's not that there wasn't competetive VAX hardware - a $30,000 VAXStation J > could easily handle many multi-user workloads ( and was priced similarlyH > to a Sun workstation at the time ), but DEC wouldn't sell a multi-userG > VMS license for it ( Sun had multi-user licenses on their boxes ) and E > instead wanted you to buy a "VAXServer" offering which had the same 6 > CPU and memory capacity but cost well over $100,000. > B >    When we stopped teaching on VMS it had nothing to do with theJ > faculty or students disliking it or feeling Unix was inherently a betterL > teaching environment - it was simply an acknowledgement that the world hadI > moved that way and the students would be better served by being exposed ) > to the "industry standard" environment.   G Our experience was pretty much the same.  In the 80s we had hundreds of G simultaneous student interactive sessions on our VMS systems.  The only F ease of use concerns were departments buying non VT52/VT100 compatibleI terminals, our IBM systems requiring our serial network to be half duplex I (aka local echo), slow dialup lines, etc.  I never heard complaints about K VMS ease of use until GUIs became popular.  Many of our member institutions I also had VMS systems in their Engineering and CS departments.  Yes, their H were always a very few screaming Unix bigots.  I suspect VMS would stillI see some use in the Engineering departments if CAD, etc. software vendors F had not dropped support for VMS.  I know at least one CS professor whoH would still teach a systems programming course on VMS if his institution( hadn't banned access to our VMS systems.  I It was sad to watch DEC destroy, mainly by its own hands, its large share D of the higher ed computing market.  When our VMS systems are finallyD retired, HP will have no presence here or at our member institutions- except for laser printers and one or two PCs.      George Cook  WVNET    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:35:59 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s, Message-ID: <445BA919.216476E3@teksavvy.com>   Malcolm Dunnett wrote:E >     Can you elaborate on this point? We taught first/second year CS H > courses on VMS for many years and ease of use was never an issue. WhatK > Unix features do you believe make it significantly easier for a computing  > neophyte to grasp?  @ My first ever accunt on VMS was gven to me by a friend. It was aB university system (business school) and I was still 2-3 years fromF university. I was very impressed by it, mostly because the HELP was soE complete, and I was able to write a fortran program compile it and (I O had to learn about that one) LINK it.  This first impression lasted a lifetime.   C Had this been a unix system, I wouldn't have ever thought of typing 3 "man" to get help and would have been totally lost.   H (The school I was going to had  1 CRT terminal and 2 decwriter IIIs withM accoustic couplers to disl in to government computers to do APL and fortran.)    ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 2006 14:45:05 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s3 Message-ID: <TDH+0iaOBd00@eisner.encompasserve.org>   e In article <yKI6g.4403$ix6.338422@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes: O > Back in the early 1980's I was first exposed to both BSD-4.4 and VMS-4.2 and  M > was totally convinced UNIX would not survive. Here it is 2006 and combined  N > flavours of UNIX/LINUX are everywhere. Maybe this is due to licensing costs H > (*NIX was free); maybe this is due to available source code (*NIX was M > available) which affected the next generation of engineering + programming  J > students; but these other reasons seemed to trump the fact that VMS was / > better than UNIX by more than a factor of 10.   E    IMHO it was because UNIX was ported to higher speed RISC computers @    while DEC kept trying to sell VAXen in the quest to beat IBM.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:12:00 -0400) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> 6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s9 Message-ID: <3RR6g.2528$VV2.175364@news20.bellglobal.com>   6 "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message & news:4c16u0F13nb5vU1@individual.net... snip > G > Unix was anything but free in the 80's.  Afterall, you needed an AT&T  > license to run BSD.  >  snip > D > The number of people actually interested in reading the source wasC > very likely minimal.  And "available" is a rather ambiguous term. F > While BSD shipped with source access to it was, by lucense, limited.; > And even that limited access led to later legal problems.  >  snip > I > And that is a matter of opinion.  While I like VMS, from the standpoint K > of student use Unix always wins in ease of use available (out of the box) K > functionality.  Argue it if you want, but I run both Unix and VMS systems K > and get to see it first hand.  And, as another data point, back when PC's F > were still rather rare, the university had a VMS machine for generalI > academic use.  We were the only department on campus with Unix systems. H > We were constantly flooded with requests for accounts from students anI > faculty who found the VMS system to not meet their needs.  Doesn't mean I > either is better or worse as computer systems go, but it does show that H > even those who had spent years using VMS went looking for alternatives# > as soon as they became available.  >  > bill >   L I think you missed my point. In the 1980s, I thought UNIX systems were junk L and would die out. In fact UNIX systems got better and faster while VMS was K mis-marketed and is now hanging by the proverbial thread (I think it has a  L better chance of being saved with HP than it ever did under Robert Palmer). L Like you, I too currently see systems side-by-side. (mostly Solaris). While M I prefer OpenVMS I can explicitly state "that recent releases of Solaris and   Red Hat LINUX are not junk".  L Getting back to this news thread, I worked (programming) on lots of 16 + 32 H bit systems from non-Intel vendors and always thought the x86 stuff was F junk. I did not have any respect for x86 until Intel came out with P4.  I So here it is 2006 and what I thought was the weaker OS (*NIX), language  M (C/C++) and CPU (x86) is now dominating my profession. I guess it is safe to  J say that I'm no H.G. Wells or Jules Verne when it comes to predicting the 
 future :-)       ###   L ps-1. I worked with Northern Telecom in the early 1980s. They paid $1000 to H become a licensee of BSD-4.4 and could (and did) roll it out at as many I locations as they liked with no extra payments. They had the source code  J because I remember a problem we encountered with an overworked DH-11 on a L PDP-11/44. A Northern Telecom programmer showed up at our location with the L source code and I remember thinking it was odd that the driver software was " written in C rather than assembly.  K ps-2. I still run into people in 2006 who had their first exposure to UNIX  I at Berkeley. (The latest guy was from Motorola). They studied the source  J code for the kernel and apps, and even improved upon many things which is F why there is something known as BSD which is different than AT&T UNIX.  I ps-3. I changed my mind about UNIX when I first was exposed to DUNIX-4.x  
 back in 1997.   
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html9 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/openvms_demos.html    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:49:20 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>, Subject: Re: Protecting windows from malware: Message-ID: <gZudnePer_yvA8bZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote:   > Rob Brown wrote: > $ >>On Thu, 4 May 2006, Richard wrote: >> >>F >>>... a Windows machine could exist without being infected by malware, >>>if a few simple precautions are followed. >>E >>Sorry, I seem to have come to this discussion late, so apologies if  >>I've missed it.  >>+ >>Please list those few simple precautions.  >> >  > . > I can list one of them ... pull the plug ... >   @ Hehehe... that is the only way to make a billy-box secure.  :-))     --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 13:05:40 -0700 ! From: Fred Bach <music@triumf.ca> 2 Subject: TAB character in DCL command-line editing( Message-ID: <445BB014.3040602@triumf.ca>  =     I have a strange problem.  I have checked the OpenVMS FAQ <     and the DCL dictionary and the OpenVms Users Manual, and7     I searched google.  No information was forthcoming.   =     The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCL ?     command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A. <     DELETE still works, but no characters can be inserted onA     my DCL command lines here as long as there is a tab character      present.  #     Can anyone else reproduce this?   B     I am using OpenVMS 8.2 and HP Motif 1.5, Multinet 5.1 Rev A-X.  9     It doesn't matter if transport is IP or LAT, or which >     X-windowing system I am using (mostly Xwin-32), or if I am>     using a VXT or a PC using Xwin-32, or an Alpha or Itanium.  @     Under the general topic of command-line editing, the OpenVMSB     Users Manual page 3-17 does say that Tabs work if line-editing@     is turned off, but it does not say that inserting a TAB on aA     DCL command line turns off line editing.  Yet that is exactly )     what happens here (insert mode only).   >     So how do I insert text into a line from the recall buffer<     if that line contains a tab character?  Deleting the TAB?     allows one to insert text, then one has to put the tab back >     where it belonged (say in a SEARCH command, which is how I     discovered this problem).        Thanks in advance.  ?    . fred bach.  music at triumf dot ca    Opinions are my own.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 22:20:58 +0200 3 From: Wilm Boerhout <w4OLD.boerhout@PAINTplanet.nl> 6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing6 Message-ID: <445bb3be$0$14263$ba620dc5@nova.planet.nl>  $ Fred Bach wrote on 5-5-2006 22:05...  > >    The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCL@ >    command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A.= >    DELETE still works, but no characters can be inserted on B >    my DCL command lines here as long as there is a tab character
 >    present.  > $ >    Can anyone else reproduce this?  + Yes, I'm seeing exactly the same behaviour.    $ tcpip sho vers  4    HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.5/    on a DEC 3000 Model 400 running OpenVMS V8.2    /Wilm    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 22:26:20 +0200 3 From: Wilm Boerhout <w4OLD.boerhout@PAINTplanet.nl> 6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing6 Message-ID: <445bb501$0$14807$ba620dc5@nova.planet.nl>  $ Fred Bach wrote on 5-5-2006 22:05...  $ >    Can anyone else reproduce this?  $ And also on EISNER:: (decuserve.org)   $ multinet show /versionB Process Software MultiNet V5.1 Rev A-X, AlphaServer DS20 500 MHz,  OpenVMS AXP V7.2-1   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 16:59:47 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing, Message-ID: <445BBCB8.91568B9F@teksavvy.com>   Fred Bach wrote:? >     The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCL A >     command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A.    On VAX 7.2, I have the same.   However:  H hello<tab>world.  If the cursor is positioned after the TAB, then insertA mode works. Before the tab, when in insert mode, nothing happens.    ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 2006 23:24:27 +0100 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing* Message-ID: <445bdeab@news.langstoeger.at>  L In article <445BB014.3040602@triumf.ca>, Fred Bach <music@triumf.ca> writes: > > >    I have a strange problem.  I have checked the OpenVMS FAQ= >    and the DCL dictionary and the OpenVms Users Manual, and 8 >    I searched google.  No information was forthcoming.  B That is strange. I can't believe that it hasn't discussed already.  > >    The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCL@ >    command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A.= >    DELETE still works, but no characters can be inserted on B >    my DCL command lines here as long as there is a tab character
 >    present.   G And this is the behaviour as long as I can remember (I started with VMS J in 1983 with V2.x, but my memory is not that far ;-) and IIRC command lineB editing started with VMS V4 (or was it only command line recall?).  $ >    Can anyone else reproduce this?   Sure.   C >    I am using OpenVMS 8.2 and HP Motif 1.5, Multinet 5.1 Rev A-X.  > : >    It doesn't matter if transport is IP or LAT, or which? >    X-windowing system I am using (mostly Xwin-32), or if I am ? >    using a VXT or a PC using Xwin-32, or an Alpha or Itanium.  > A >    Under the general topic of command-line editing, the OpenVMS C >    Users Manual page 3-17 does say that Tabs work if line-editing A >    is turned off, but it does not say that inserting a TAB on a B >    DCL command line turns off line editing.  Yet that is exactly* >    what happens here (insert mode only).  C You can't insert characters into the DCL command line before a tab. B You can insert characters into the DCL command line after the tab.H You can replace characters in the DCL command line before/after the tab.) In other words, you can't "move" the tab. 7 To workaround, remove temporarly the tab (edit by hand)    And:I You can't insert characters into the DCL command line before a line wrap. F You can insert characters into the DCL command line after a line wrap.H You can't replace characters in the DCL command line before a line wrap.E You can replace characters in the DCL command line after a line wrap. ? In other words, you can't move the cursor before the line wrap. G To workaround, remove temporarly the line wrap (eg. $ SET TERM/WID=200)   ? >    So how do I insert text into a line from the recall buffer = >    if that line contains a tab character?  Deleting the TAB @ >    allows one to insert text, then one has to put the tab back? >    where it belonged (say in a SEARCH command, which is how I  >    discovered this problem).   You found the only way (AFAIK)   --   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: Fri, 05 May 2006 14:28:33 -0700 ! From: Fred Bach <music@triumf.ca> 6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing( Message-ID: <445BC381.2050706@triumf.ca>   JF Mezei wrote:  > Fred Bach wrote: > ? >>    The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCL A >>    command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A.  >  >  > On VAX 7.2, I have the same. > 
 > However: > J > hello<tab>world.  If the cursor is positioned after the TAB, then insertC > mode works. Before the tab, when in insert mode, nothing happens.      and Wilm Boerhout wrote:   > - > Yes, I'm seeing exactly the same behaviour.  >  > $ tcpip sho vers > 5 >   HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.5 0 >   on a DEC 3000 Model 400 running OpenVMS V8.2 >  > /Wilm   	    [snip]   & > And also on EISNER:: (decuserve.org) >  > $ multinet show /versionW > Process Software MultiNet V5.1 Rev A-X, AlphaServer DS20 500 MHz, OpenVMS AXP V7.2-1            JF, Wilm,  1    Thanks very much indeed for the verifications!   B    So now I believe that the way that DCL command-line insert-mode@    works is NOT as advertised in the VMS documentation, since no@    reference is made to this artifact nor how to work around it!  B    Yet the fault is very fundamental.  So I believe I have found aA    DCL bug, after all these years!  (Not bad, even so close to my C    finding and publishing here the week-number bug in DECW Calendar -    after its being in use for so many years.)   @    Would any HP people out there have any useful comments (other1    than 'get lost!') ?? ;-)    Thanks in advance.   ?   .. fred bach   music at triumf dot ca .  Opinions are my own.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:49:10 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing/ Message-ID: <BuCdnYc4RL1DYsbZRVn-tg@libcom.com>    Fred Bach wrote: > JF Mezei wrote:  >> Fred Bach wrote:  >>@ >>>    The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCLB >>>    command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A. >> >> >> On VAX 7.2, I have the same.  >> >> However:  >>K >> hello<tab>world.  If the cursor is positioned after the TAB, then insert D >> mode works. Before the tab, when in insert mode, nothing happens. >  >  > and Wilm Boerhout wrote: >  >>. >> Yes, I'm seeing exactly the same behaviour. >> >> $ tcpip sho vers  >>6 >>   HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.51 >>   on a DEC 3000 Model 400 running OpenVMS V8.2  >>	 >> /Wilm   > 
 >   [snip] > ' >> And also on EISNER:: (decuserve.org)  >> >> $ multinet show /version E >> Process Software MultiNet V5.1 Rev A-X, AlphaServer DS20 500 MHz,   >> OpenVMS AXP V7.2-1  >  >  > 
 >   JF, Wilm,  > 2 >   Thanks very much indeed for the verifications! > C >   So now I believe that the way that DCL command-line insert-mode A >   works is NOT as advertised in the VMS documentation, since no A >   reference is made to this artifact nor how to work around it!  > C >   Yet the fault is very fundamental.  So I believe I have found a # >   DCL bug, after all these years!   F I'm thinking that it's the terminal driver, not DCL that might have a > problem.  The terminal driver doesn't get much TLC these days.    >  (Not bad, even so close to myD >   finding and publishing here the week-number bug in DECW Calendar. >   after its being in use for so many years.) > A >   Would any HP people out there have any useful comments (other 2 >   than 'get lost!') ?? ;-)    Thanks in advance. > @ >  .. fred bach   music at triumf dot ca .  Opinions are my own. >      --  4 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    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:41:50 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question, Message-ID: <445BAA78.273B4FD4@teksavvy.com>   Tom Linden wrote:  > ODIN> nslookup 64.233.183.114 D > *** Kednos.COM can't find 64.233.183.114: Non-existent host/domain  B Reverse translations work in a similar way to normal translations:= request goes to a root server which tells which DNS server is P responsible for that IP block. Then request goes to that server to get resolved.  > In the above case, it resolved to whom that IP belongs and theG respomsible DNS server responded with a negative answer. (aka: Hi, i am : here, but I doN't have a reverse translation for this IP).      : > *** Kednos.COM can't find 209.216.202.165: Server failed  F The root server pointed to a DNS server responsible for that IP block,D but that DNS server did not respond. So your request cannot obtain aG positive or negative answer. (or, your link to the internet is down and 7 you can't even get the response from the root servers).    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 16:15:01 -0400 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> $ Subject: Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question0 Message-ID: <ouKdnSaE9OjXL8bZRVn-uA@comcast.com>   Tom Linden wrote:    > Under TCPIP5.4,5 & 6 >  > H > Periodically add spam filters as the traffic begins to mount and using > NSLOOKUP observed following  >  > ODIN> nslookup 64.233.183.114  > Server:  Kednos.COM  > Address:  206.55.236.245 > D > *** Kednos.COM can't find 64.233.183.114: Non-existent host/domain > % > OK, that is understandable, but ...  >  >   > ODIN> nslookup 209.216.202.165 > Server:  Kednos.COM  > Address:  206.55.236.245 > : > *** Kednos.COM can't find 209.216.202.165: Server failed > 4 > Server failed?  Why is that and what does it mean?  3 It means that 209.216.etc is not registered in DNS.   B http://ws.arin.net/whois will tell you who the address belongs to.  G BTW, checking DNS registration is one of the more potent spam filters.  7 If you don't know who it is, don't accept mail from it.   H Another technique which may or may not be valid in your circumstance is G blocking SMTP from 218.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0.  218 is assigned to China  G and Korea and as far as I could tell seemed devoted to sending spam to  F the US.  According to my calculations, ca. 2003, Blocking the 218 net % would have eliminated 40% of my spam.   I See where your spam is coming from and then slash and burn.  Most people  @ can safely block e-mail from Russia, Poland, Italy, France, etc.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 22:35:10 +0200 3 From: Wilm Boerhout <w4OLD.boerhout@PAINTplanet.nl> $ Subject: Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question6 Message-ID: <445bb713$0$13700$ba620dc5@nova.planet.nl>  - Richard B. Gilbert wrote on 5-5-2006 22:15...   J > Another technique which may or may not be valid in your circumstance is I > blocking SMTP from 218.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0.  218 is assigned to China  I > and Korea and as far as I could tell seemed devoted to sending spam to  H > the US.  According to my calculations, ca. 2003, Blocking the 218 net ' > would have eliminated 40% of my spam.  > K > See where your spam is coming from and then slash and burn.  Most people  B > can safely block e-mail from Russia, Poland, Italy, France, etc.  ' and for the *real* xenophobes among us:   D 90% of the spam we receive in the Netherlands originates from US IP 9 addresses... certainly 95% of spam I receive is US based.    Hate to shut you off though...   /Wilm    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:45:23 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> $ Subject: Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question) Message-ID: <op.s83n5xqrzgicya@hyrrokkin>   . On Fri, 05 May 2006 12:41:50 -0700, JF Mezei  % <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:    > Tom Linden wrote:   >> ODIN> nslookup 64.233.183.114E >> *** Kednos.COM can't find 64.233.183.114: Non-existent host/domain  > D > Reverse translations work in a similar way to normal translations:? > request goes to a root server which tells which DNS server is J > responsible for that IP block. Then request goes to that server to get   > resolved.  > @ > In the above case, it resolved to whom that IP belongs and theI > respomsible DNS server responded with a negative answer. (aka: Hi, i am < > here, but I doN't have a reverse translation for this IP). >  >  > ; >> *** Kednos.COM can't find 209.216.202.165: Server failed  > H > The root server pointed to a DNS server responsible for that IP block,F > but that DNS server did not respond. So your request cannot obtain aI > positive or negative answer. (or, your link to the internet is down and 9 > you can't even get the response from the root servers).   H Well, that doesn't make sense, since the DNS server is me!  Now I just   tried J it from a Tru64 box using my DNS as well as another DNS, so it must have a different meaning.  2 bash-2.03$ nslookup 209.216.202.165 206.55.236.245 Server:  Kednos.COM  Address:  206.55.236.245  8 *** Kednos.COM can't find 209.216.202.165: Server failed  # bash-2.03$ nslookup 209.216.202.165  Server:  ns.mbay.net Address:  206.55.237.3  9 *** ns.mbay.net can't find 209.216.202.165: Server failed    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:56:15 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question, Message-ID: <445C0237.438D70DF@teksavvy.com>   Tom Linden wrote: H > Well, that doesn't make sense, since the DNS server is me!  Now I just > tried L > it from a Tru64 box using my DNS as well as another DNS, so it must have a > different meaning.  : > *** Kednos.COM can't find 209.216.202.165: Server failed    @ Your client sends the request your your DNS server (kednos.com).D Your DNS server sends a request to the remote root server which thenE provides the IP of the server in charge of that IP range. That server ? then gives the IP of the authoritative server for that IP. That 9 authoritative server then gives the fully qualified name.   + nslookup -debug -norecurse 209.216.202.165  F shoudl give you the name of the authoritative DNS server for that IP. $ I have ns1.adnc.net and ns2.adnc.net  H  Those two servers are the ones which do not have translation for the IP you are requesting.   D if you do a WHOIS of the IP address, you get the name of the companyC that is responsibel for that IP and can contact them to ask them to 
 resolve this.   G In this particular case, if you interrogate one of those 2 DNS servers, 3 the code theur return for that query is "SERVFAIL".   F That particualt DNS server is up. My guess is that they are consideredF authoritative for the IP block of interest to you, but are missing theE 202.216.209.in-addr.arpa.db zone file in their dns database  so their  DNS server reports an error.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 23:27:04 -0400 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> $ Subject: Re: TCPIP/NSLOOKUP question: Message-ID: <vemdnevGEMUXisHZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>   Wilm Boerhout wrote:  / > Richard B. Gilbert wrote on 5-5-2006 22:15...  > H >> Another technique which may or may not be valid in your circumstance G >> is blocking SMTP from 218.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0.  218 is assigned to  H >> China and Korea and as far as I could tell seemed devoted to sending I >> spam to the US.  According to my calculations, ca. 2003, Blocking the  0 >> 218 net would have eliminated 40% of my spam. >>E >> See where your spam is coming from and then slash and burn.  Most  J >> people can safely block e-mail from Russia, Poland, Italy, France, etc. >  > ) > and for the *real* xenophobes among us:  > F > 90% of the spam we receive in the Netherlands originates from US IP ; > addresses... certainly 95% of spam I receive is US based.  >   > Hate to shut you off though... >  > /Wilm   G Does it ORIGINATE in the US or did you simply receive it from a system  B in the US?  The US probably has more clueless idiots with Windows F systems than any other country on earth.  Many of these machines have H been taken over (zombied) by spammers and spend all their time relaying  spam.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 00:41:31 GMT ; From: "Jeffrey H. Coffield" <jeffrey@digitalsynergyinc.com>  Subject: Re: to bob@instantwhip > Message-ID: <%gS6g.82010$dW3.16774@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>   Mark Daniel wrote:  D > I'm just curious why mail to bob@instantwhip.com was not employed I > considering that would have been the less public method for attracting  K > attention (if that's not too oxymoronic).  Must be late in the week when  + > stuff like this prompts a few keystrokes.    The email bounced.   ------------------------------   Date: 5 May 2006 19:40:02 -0700 ; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> $ Subject: Re: X windows vulnerabilityC Message-ID: <1146883202.349331.211720@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    Richard wrote:1 > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]  > ? > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> spake the secret code * > <4459280A.61DF962C@teksavvy.com> thusly: > M > >It is in fact an X windows vulnerability affecting all systems running it.  > > ' > >http://secunia.com/advisories/19307/  > H > It is in fact an X windows vulnerability affecting all systems running > X11 6.x and X11 7.x. > F > There are many, many releases and versions of the X Window System soG > making the broad statement above is not true.  This is pointed out in A > the third paragraph in the "Description" section of the URL you 	 > posted.  > --  F According to the paragraph in the linked notice your statement, thoughG narrower in scope than JF's,  is still too broad.  Here is the relevant 
 paragraph:  F "The vulnerability has been reported in X.Org server 1.0.0 (as shippedE with X11R7.0) and later, X11R6.9.0 and X11R7.0 (including all release G candidates). X11R6.8.2 and prior versions are reportedly not affected."   D Note that it states that versions X11R6.8.2 and prior are apparentlyF not vulnerable.  The X Windows used in VMS's Motif V1.5 is based on an9 earlier version (X11R6.6) according to the Release Notes.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 00:37:37 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: X windows vulnerability, Message-ID: <445C27FF.8C79FCF5@teksavvy.com>  ! "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" wrote: F > Note that it states that versions X11R6.8.2 and prior are apparentlyH > not vulnerable.  The X Windows used in VMS's Motif V1.5 is based on an; > earlier version (X11R6.6) according to the Release Notes.   E If VMS engineering were still fully staffed, then they woudl have had C the resources to post a notice announcing to their customers that a E particular vulnerability does not (or does) affect the VMS version of 
 the software.   G This is not the first time that public vulnerabilities of software such F as X, motif, Bind etc have had no sign of life from VMS engineering to. confirm that the VMS version was NOT affected.  F It would be nice PR for HP to make public the fact that VMS version ofH such software was not vulnerable whenever such warnings are made public.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.250 ************************