1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 28 Feb 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 118       Contents: Re: AMD blew it big time!  Re: AMD blew it big time! & Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-21 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT 1 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT 
 ewa circuit ?  Re: ewa circuit ?  Re: ewa circuit ?  Re: fax software open vms % Re: Itanium still not on alpha level! % Re: Itanium still not on alpha level! H Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90.H Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90. NFS issues on VMS 7.3-1  Re: OpenVMS screenshots?= Re: Pedophile Darrell Larose cramming his dick in boys' asses 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! P Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linuP Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linu, Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-)( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! Testing of bit fields in DCL  Re: Testing of bit fields in DCL  Re: Testing of bit fields in DCL( Version 8.2 and CREATE/MAILBOX/TEMPORARY, Re: Version 8.2 and CREATE/MAILBOX/TEMPORARY* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 09:07:47 -0800- From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> " Subject: Re: AMD blew it big time!C Message-ID: <1141146467.759514.101530@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>    Bill Todd wrote: > H > And TPC-C was indeed that best case.  Though I've seen slightly higherG > estimates from EV8's developers for EV8's TPC-C SMT improvement, even I > 210% is somewhat greater than a factor of 2x, so it's really not at all F > clear what portion of my statement you are under the mistaken belief > that you are refuting. >  > > : > > The 1.3Ghz EV7z does ~101 SPECint95 and ~255 SPECfp95. > J > Gee, Andrew:  leaving aside exactly where you got the above information,I > what part of the difference between projections and reality has managed  > to evade you?     D Hold that thought because it is the fundamental falacy heart of your	 argument.   F We are discussing the actual performance of EV7 vs Opteron (measurableG now) vs extrapolations for the clock speed, single threaded performance  and SMT/TLP performance of EV8.   E Your estimates of EV8 performance are based on an estimate multiplied F by an estimate multiplied by an estimate where you have taken the bestE estimate for each step. For your analysis to work EV8 has to have hit < 2Ghz now, it has to issue 2.9 instructions per cycle and itsA multi-threaded microarchitecture has to acheive a greater than 2x  speedup on int with 4 threads.  A You site TPC-C as being an ideal workload but in reality the 210% E integer speedup projected by Compaq was based on SPECint95 a far more E sympathetic workload than TPC-C because of its lower memory pressure,  lack of locking etc.   > J > The *projected* performance of EV7 (that which one should compare to theI > *projected* performance of EV8) was stated in a (similarly early) 21364 J > presentation as 70 SPECint95 and 120 SPECfp95 (for a 1 GHz part).  FunnyF > how Alphas (in rather marked contrast to SPARCs...) tended to exceedG > expectations, isn't it?  Of course, delays and subsequent advances in G > things like clock and memory speeds played some part as well, but the   E You seem to have missed out the T1, USVI+ and SPARC64 V which seem to G have delivered as good or better performance than expected. In the case 4 of the T1 much better performance than was expected.  @ > fact remains that the *projected* SPECint95 EV8 performance atI > introduction which you quote above is exactly twice the *projected* EV7 I > performance which Pete Bannon stated in the presentation I just cited - J > and EV8's ultimate projected SPECint95 performance of 200 in its 130 nm.J > process was nearly 3x EV7's projected performance (and *well* over twiceE > what that projection would have been even had it been scaled up for  > today's 1.3 GHz part).  F So you admit that EV7z is currently delivering 1/2 the single threadedB performance of the best EV8 performance estimate. Factor in Paul'sF estimates of SMT throughput of 2x and you get a processor which at itsF top clock speed might have delivered 4x the performance of the currentE EV7z or put another way EV8 might just acheive the same throughput as < Opteron or Power5+ but at some time in the future.  With EV8 performance now of ?????  A Of course you could argue that if EV8 had not been cancelled then C HP/Intel  would probably not have pushed EV7 to 1.3 Ghz which might 1 have made you point more defensible but they did.   D This doesn't help your argument instead it only serves to illustrateB that you are arguing as if EV8 existed but basing your argument onG extrapolated data for both EV7 and EV8 while not allowing the inclusion 0 of actual EV7 data because it spoils your point.  D Despite your bravado I am sure that you must be aware as is everyone- else how flawed and fragile your position is.  >  > > I > > Its pretty clear that for your point to be correct and for mine to be K > > incorrect EV8 would need to have hit its top end frequency goal of 2Ghz K > > now, since this is a trifle unlikely your point hardly holds water does  > > it.  > J > Rhetorical question, right?  I'll forgive your inadvertent omission of aA > question mark (and for that matter a comma as well), since your F > education appears to have skimped a bit where grammar was concerned. > H > You really are something of an obstinate moron when you've been caughtJ > out, you know.  Not only would it have been eminently reasonable for EV8H > to have reached 2 GHz *two years after having shipped at 1.8 GHz*, butI > according to Paul DeMone at realworldtech EV8's cooling was designed to H > dissipate up to 250W of power, and in his estimation that correspondedJ > to an ultimate clock rate (in the 130 nm. process) of *at least* 2.5 GHzJ > (which you will note is much more compatible with the range of projectedG > SPECint95 performance numbers which you yourself provided above:  did G > you *really* think that increasing EV8's clock rate from 1.8 GHz to 2 7 > GHz would have bumped SPECint95 up from 140 to 200?).  >   D Humm the last projected date for EV8 manufacture was 2003 however atG that time the same NDA suggested that EV7 would arrive in 2001. In fact B it arrived in 2003. You are welcome to believe that EV8 would haveB arrived at the same time as EV7 but it is highly unlikely. So lets@ assume that EV8 had arrived in 2005 at 1.2 Ghz the initial introG frequency and then ramped up. Do you really think it would have reached 
 2 Ghz by now.   E Take the example of Power 5+, in many ways a simpler processor with 2 F rather than 4 threads but superscalar with support of OOE like EV8. ItC has just reached 1.9 Ghz and thats with each POWER5+ core consuming A roughly 70% of transistors of the projected EV8 transistor count.   H > Furthermore, Paul's estimate of EV8's performance *at its introductionJ > speed* was 2x that of EV7 single-threaded, 4x multi-threaded.  I may notH > agree with Paul about things Itanic-related, but when it came to AlphaB > he seemed to have his head screwed on somewhere nearly straight. >   E Again this is an extrapolation multiplied by an extrapolation, hardly  convincing.   E > And finally (as I noted before, but you appear to have conveniently G > overlooked) EV8 would likely now be shipping not in 130 nm. but in 90 N > nm., at the start of a new frequency ramp rather than the end of an old one. >   E No, thats why I included the POWER5+ example, a simpler SMT processor 3 with fewer transistors being fabbed in an 90nm fab.   J > So I suggest that you just take your lumps and shut up now:  you utteredG > some complete drivel regarding EV8's likely performance compared with H > EV7, you were called on it fairly and squarely, and unless you want toB > look even more like an idiot you'd be well-advised to move on toJ > something you actually understand and about which you might therefore be& > able to contribute something useful.  A Repeating a point which has allready been show to be best used to / describe yourself is hardly sensible is it Bill    Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:31:03 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> " Subject: Re: AMD blew it big time!9 Message-ID: <kridnc4v2Iz8FZnZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Todd wrote: > Michael D. Ober wrote: >  >>  J >> Probably was.  VAX/VMS was a threat to the PDP-11/TOPS-20 OS and there  >> were K >> a lot of people inside DEC who were emotionally committed to the PDP-11.  >  > K > You really should stop blowing smoke out of your ass:  it just makes you   > look stupid. > J > There was indeed some less-than-friendly rivalry between the 36-bitters G > and VAX/VMS, but any rivalry between the PDP-11 and VMS was amicable  H > (well, the RSTS people were frustrated that VMS wouldn't adopt a more I > RSTS-like upgrade path for their users, but that didn't mean that they  ( > failed to appreciate VMS's strengths).  B Early VMS was very frustrating for RSTS people.  However, DEC did B listen, and eventually VMS bacame very successful for the ex-RSTS G people.  A bit like, "Ok, the auto is working well now, get rid of the   horse and buggy".   ? > Those of us working on the 11 were all too well aware of its  K > address-space limitations:  while working within them was in some ways a   > pleasurable challenge,  G Well, designing overlay trees for large applications did stimulate the   imagination.  :-)   0 > three was no question whatsoever that a wider K > architecture would be required to remain competitive by the beginning of  I > the '80s if not before - and VAX/VMS was a far more compatible upgrade  > > path for 11 users than the 36-bit platforms would have been. > H > So while one can argue (as I did at the time) that DEC may have wound D > down 16- (and perhaps even more so 36-) bit development a bit too I > quickly (DEC was arguably large and strong enough to have pursued them  G > for a while longer along with VAX, and the fact was that VAX was not  J > able to take up the slack in a cost-effective - with respect to the 11s G > - and a performance-effective - with respect to the 36-bit systems -  J > manner as soon as the DEC transition would have had it do so), the idea D > that people in the 11 world were actively sabotaging it is absurd. >  > - bill  F The problem at DEC, and what's probably the single biggest reason the A company no longer exists, was the constant infighting within the  G company.  The groups saw other groups within DEC as worse than outside  I competitors.  While I ended up in the VAX side of things, I was sorry to  G see the 36 bit systems disappear.  Too bad they couldn't have been one  E happy family wrecking havoc on the competition instead of each other.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:32:32 -0600 - From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@goatley.com> / Subject: Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-2 8 Message-ID: <kCVMf.9384$eQ3.3935@bignews4.bellsouth.net>   David J Dachtera wrote:  > I > Multinet transfers RMS files to Multinet successfully, but not to UCX.   >  > Can't say about TCPware. > H > UCX transfers RMS files to UCX successfully (according to the doc.'s -F > I've yet to see it work as late as V5.4 ECO-4), but not to Multinet. > B Both MultiNet and TCPware support UCX's FDL method of transferringB files and preserving attributes. When a file is transferred in FDL? mode, an .FDL file is created and transferred to (using PUT/FDL 
 and GET/FDL).   ? MultiNet, TCPware, and HGFTP all support STRU O VMS, which is a A cleaner method for preserving attributes, as no external FDL file E is required.  The FDL method has the benefit of preserving attributes B when an interim, non-VMS system is used. UCX has never implemented> support for STRU O VMS (which was a protocol designed by TGV).   Hunter ------9 Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ B PreciseMail Anti-Spam Gateway for OpenVMS, Tru64, Solaris, & Linux goathunter@goatley.com   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 07:29:40 -0600 From: briggs@encompasserve.org: Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT3 Message-ID: <7CxsBZMsBO3f@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <44037954.12C58872@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:! > briggs@encompasserve.org wrote: L >> /DETACH requires no privilege and permits any unprivileged user to create2 >> a detached process running under their own UIC. > G > Thanks. Just tried it and it does create a process that is not in the N > parent's tree. Unfortunatly, this is a true detached process without any CLI  I Yes.  And that has nothing to do with whether the process is a subprocess F or is a detached process.  You only get a CLI if you run loginout.exe.  G > So when starting MOSAIC for instance, it doesn't inherit the logicals  > defined in LOGIN.COM.   H Just running loginout.exe so that you get a CLI is not enough to get the logicals defined in LOGIN.COM.  G In order to get LOGIN.COM to run, you need to use the /AUTHORIZE switch G which tells LOGINOUT.EXE to pull various process information out of the F UAF.  Among other things, this defines your default disk and directoryE and login command procedure name.  Without this, you won't be running 
 LOGIN.COM.  H /AUTHORIZE does nothing for sub-processes.  Only for detached processes.  F Note that the /AUTHORIZE switch does not mean that the created processI will be prompting for username and password.  It just means that LOGINOUT B will be looking up process quotas, privileges, UIC, account, disk,G directory, login command procedure, etc in the UAF rather than allowing D all of these things to be defaulted or specified by the RUN command.  D [My understanding is that username prompting is triggered by variousK other flags in the $CREPRC call so that loginout knows when to authenticate 8 an interactive login, a network login or a batch login.]  K Note that the created process always runs with the USERNAME of the creator. E With /AUTHORIZE this means that it will pick up the UIC and all other G information from the UAF record belonging to the creator.  This feature 7 can cause frustration if a privileged user is trying to E $ RUN /UIC=[somebody-else] /AUTHORIZE.  The process will start with a B UIC of [somebody-else] but loginout.exe will immediately change it to the creator's UIC.   J > So now I'll have to see if I can do this with loginout.exe with input of' > a command procedure that runs mosaic.    Yup.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:12:46 -0500  From: "Jilly" <jilly@hp.com>: Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT, Message-ID: <4404767e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  , <briggs@encompasserve.org> wrote in message - news:7CxsBZMsBO3f@eisner.encompasserve.org... E > Note that the created process always runs with the USERNAME of the  
 > creator.G > With /AUTHORIZE this means that it will pick up the UIC and all other I > information from the UAF record belonging to the creator.  This feature 9 > can cause frustration if a privileged user is trying to G > $ RUN /UIC=[somebody-else] /AUTHORIZE.  The process will start with a D > UIC of [somebody-else] but loginout.exe will immediately change it > to the creator's UIC.   M What has been asked for a number of times is a RUN/USER=username command ala  G SUBMIT/USER but to date it hasn't happened.  It is more problematic to  M implement a RUN/USER command since all SUBMIT/USER has to do is call $SNDJBC  M with the right stuff where as RUN would have to use the $PERSONA services to  I 1st switch the calling process over to the requested username, then call   $CREPRC and then switch back.    Jilly    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:25:46 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>  Subject: ewa circuit ?( Message-ID: <ops5o348b0zgicya@hyrrokkin>  7 Added a DS10L with both SAN and 2 ethernet, during boot       %NCP-W-OPEFAI, Operation failure  ' %SYSTEM-F-IVADDR, invalid media address , %NCP-W-UNRCMP, Unrecognized component , Line Line = EWA-2- %SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHDEV, no such device available / %NCP-W-UNRCMP, Unrecognized component , Circuit  Circuit = EWA-1   / %NCP-W-UNRCMP, Unrecognized component , Circuit  Circuit = EWA-2   ) %NCP-I-NOINFO, No information in database ( %NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000  " yet once booted the circuit works.   Ideas?   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:44:10 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)  Subject: Re: ewa circuit ?2 Message-ID: <_R0Nf.3803$1I1.1676@news.cpqcorp.net>  N In article <ops5o348b0zgicya@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:( :%SYSTEM-F-IVADDR, invalid media address  B   In this context, that's likely a duplicate network address.  Do E   start TCP/IP, LAT or such protocols after starting DECnet Phase IV, D   or (for those products that support it) do request that the DECnetB   Phase IV address be reserved when the product starts.  The otherD   common trigger are two controllers on the same LAN segment, as youD   can have only one DECnet Phase IV address active on any non-routedE   (contiguous, repeated, hub'd or bridged) LAN segment.   If you want D   more than one connection on the same LAN segment, you must upgrade%   to DECnet-Plus; to DECnet Phase IV.       N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G        Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[\0100]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:42:19 -0000 * From: "Richard Brodie" <R.Brodie@rl.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ewa circuit ?2 Message-ID: <du221r$ogu$1@blackmamba.itd.rl.ac.uk>  Q "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message news:ops5o348b0zgicya@hyrrokkin...   9 > Added a DS10L with both SAN and 2 ethernet, during boot   " > %NCP-W-OPEFAI, Operation failure > ) > %SYSTEM-F-IVADDR, invalid media address   8 You can only have one interface running DECnet (IV) on a8 switched network because of the requirement for a unique MAC address.  . > %NCP-W-UNRCMP, Unrecognized component , Line > Line = EWA-2  % That would be the third interface...     ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:52:23 +0000 0 From: Chris Sharman <chris.sharman@sorry.nospam>" Subject: Re: fax software open vms4 Message-ID: <du1h28$ats$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>   rexdale118@hotmail.com wrote:  > fax software open vms G > i would like to install fax software , using open vms 7.3 v on compaq  > alphaserver ds 10  > can anybody help me % > thank you in advance for your input   H Goldfax is/was a reasonable product, but has suffered from poor support E in the UK. It's pretty much legacy now - it's been a long time since  < I've seen the owners put any visible effort into VMS issues.   Chris    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:36:28 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> . Subject: Re: Itanium still not on alpha level!9 Message-ID: <kridnckv2Iw4FJnZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@libcom.com>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote:> > what about a single cpu box?  will there still be single cpu; > itaniums available in a few years?  doesn't sound like it  > to me ...  >   @ Why do you care about the CPU count?  It's the system price and B performance that matter.  Don't open the box and count CPUs it it  bothers you.  L Actually, it will still be one chip, so you won't be able to count the CPUs.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:12:58 +0100 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> . Subject: Re: Itanium still not on alpha level!= Message-ID: <4404929e$0$78281$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>    Dave Froble wrote: > bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > ? >> what about a single cpu box?  will there still be single cpu < >> itaniums available in a few years?  doesn't sound like it >> to me ... >> > B > Why do you care about the CPU count?  It's the system price and D > performance that matter.  Don't open the box and count CPUs it it  > bothers you. > I > Actually, it will still be one chip, so you won't be able to count the   > CPUs.  > I If you have to buy a software license per CPU or per core then it may be  G very important how many CPUs and cores you need to do the job.  Please  D note that many software vendors charge you per CPU or per core or a G mixture, and the vendors have given up letting the price depend on how   good the CPUs and/or cores are.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:56:09 -0500 - From: "Jim Agnew" <brainwavesurfer@gmail.com> Q Subject: Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90. G Message-ID: <a184d6630602280656t2a50c32j218259ae8dc3e97@mail.gmail.com>   ) ------=_Part_11153_11194138.1141138569331 , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  Content-Disposition: inline   L thanks for all the replies...  Yes, my old sysadmin was quite the whacker i= n 6 saving space...  Here's what I've found out to date...G since i'm posting from Gmail I'm not gonna be able to thread this quite  correctly..   J I've found a sysdisk that boots one vs4000-90 just fine, but not this one,G the biggest diff is that this particular one has a color display, not a  monochrome.  would that do it?  I I have a remastered vms 5.5-2 cd set.., I may make a new system boot disk J with all the trimmings, and copy back to the original one what's missing..J that may do it..it *would* be nice to have sys$examples back again.. (yup, he trimmed there also...)    Jim   G Thanks to one and all who replied..  It's interesting what gets back to # gmail and what does not.  ah well..       = On 2/27/06, Stanley F. Quayle <squayle@insight.rr.com> wrote:  >  > > VMB-I-STS, R0 =3D 00000912 >   > The associated status message: > & >   %SYSTEM-E-NOSUCHFILE, no such file > I > > One kind person noted that the DKDRIVER probably is not loaded on the 9 > > Microvax, but is needed for boot on the vaxstation...  > E > Someone must have whacked that file.  Odd, even the V7.3 version is  > only 43 blocks.  >  > > 5.5-2HW 	 > > 5.5-2  > E > Others have pointed out that -2HW came before -2.  And 5.5-2H4 came E > after -2.  Fortunately, I have the -2H4 update handy -- it's needed 8 > to support the 3100 and 4000 emulations in CHARON-VAX. >  > --Stan Quayle  > Quayle Consulting Inc. >  > ----------: > Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX5 > 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA > > stan-at-stanq-dot-com   http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html+ > "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"  >  >  >   ) ------=_Part_11153_11194138.1141138569331 + Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  Content-Disposition: inline   L thanks for all the replies...&nbsp; Yes, my old sysadmin was quite the whac=L ker in saving space...&nbsp; Here's what I've found out to date...<br>since=L  i'm posting from Gmail I'm not gonna be able to thread this quite correctl= y..<br> L <br>I've found a sysdisk that boots one vs4000-90 just fine, but not this o=L ne, the biggest diff is that this particular one has a color display, not a=L  monochrome.&nbsp; would that do it?<br><br>I have a remastered vms 5.5-2 c=L d set.., I may make a new system boot disk with all the trimmings, and copy=L  back to the original one what's missing.. that may do it..it *would* be ni=D ce to have sys$examples back again.. (yup, he trimmed there also...)L <br><br>Jim<br><br>Thanks to one and all who replied..&nbsp; It's interesti=L ng what gets back to gmail and what does not.&nbsp; ah well..<br><br><br><b=L r><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2/27/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername= ">Stanley F. Quayle L </b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:squayle@insight.rr.com">squayle@insight.rr.com</=L a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:=L  1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex= ;"> L &gt; VMB-I-STS, R0 =3D 00000912<br><br>The associated status message:<br><b=L r>&nbsp;&nbsp;%SYSTEM-E-NOSUCHFILE, no such file<br><br>&gt; One kind perso=L n noted that the DKDRIVER probably is not loaded on the<br>&gt; Microvax, b=* ut is needed for boot on the vaxstation...L <br><br>Someone must have whacked that file.&nbsp;&nbsp;Odd, even the V7.3 =L version is<br>only 43 blocks.<br><br>&gt; 5.5-2HW<br>&gt; 5.5-2<br><br>Othe=L rs have pointed out that -2HW came before -2.&nbsp;&nbsp;And 5.5-2H4 came<b=L r>after -2.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fortunately, I have the -2H4 update handy -- it's ne= ededL <br>to support the 3100 and 4000 emulations in CHARON-VAX.<br><br>--Stan Qu=L ayle<br>Quayle Consulting Inc.<br><br>----------<br>Stanley F. Quayle, P.E.=L  N8SQ&nbsp;&nbsp;Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX<br>8572 North Spring Ct., Picke=+ rington, OH&nbsp;&nbsp;43147&nbsp;&nbsp;USA L <br>stan-at-stanq-dot-com&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href=3D"http://www.stanq.com/charo=L n-vax.html">http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html</a><br>&quot;OpenVMS, when=C  downtime is not an option&quot;<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>   + ------=_Part_11153_11194138.1141138569331--    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:34:41 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> Q Subject: Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90. / Message-ID: <rMednQ4TzprXCpnZRVn-pw@libcom.com>    Jim Agnew wrote:
 > Dear Group,  > K > We've been running an ancient Microvax 3900 that's still running strong,  F > but my paranoia says we have no spare parts for it and therefore no  > disaster recovery..  > J > We have several VAXstations and RZ disks, so the logical thing to do is I > to use standalone backup to copy the system disk to another RA90, then  6 > use the cluster to backup/image the RA90 to a RZ28.. > D > Then, trying to boot off of the RZ28 on the vaxstation, i got the  > following errors...  >  > -DKA0  > VMB-F-ERR, PC = 00001334 > VMB-I-STS, R0 = 00000912 > H > One kind person noted that the DKDRIVER probably is not loaded on the I > Microvax, but is needed for boot on the vaxstation...  On bumping into  H > something in the FAQ, a vaxstation 4000-90 needs vms 5.5-2HW to boot, K > but a VAXstation 4000-90A only needs 5.5-2, which is what version of vms  K > we have.  Having 3 of these beasties, how can I tell if one of them is a  I > 90A ?  I do have a 4000-60, but besides from having less ram, i'm back  , > to having no disaster backup if it goes... > J > If anyone has any pointers, advice, or whatever, lemme know!   Jim Agnew  E The 90A ia a successor to the 90, so if the VAXstation 4000 model 90  F needs a particular version, the VAXstation 4000 model 90A should also 9 need at least that version, and possibly something newer.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 10:01:18 -0800 From: kyle.barton@asg.com   Subject: NFS issues on VMS 7.3-1C Message-ID: <1141149678.721905.276380@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>   G I've run into a NFS issue I am hoping someone here can help me with. We G have two Alphas both running 7.3-1. The scond was set up as a duplicate E of the first for development purposes. One of the key features of the B environement is a set of NFS mounts to a Solaris 8 machine. On the' original box the mount works just fine: 3 $ ucx mount dnfs1: /HOST="10.17.25.29" /PATH="/dvl" ; %TCPIP$DNFSMOUNT-S-MOUNTED, /dvl mounted on _DNFS1:[000000]   , But on the new machine I get timeout errors:3 $ ucx mount dnfs1: /HOST="10.17.25.29" /PATH="/dvl" < %TCPIP$DNFSMOUNT-E-MOUNTFAIL, error mounting _DNFS1:[000000]! -SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout   E As far as I can tell the two machines are functionally identical. And F there are no other networking issues on the second machine, I can pingD the target machine for example. And I get the same results whether I? use IP or DNS name, the first machine works the second doesn't.   G I am a relative novice when it comes to VMS, but as all our experienced A VMS sys admins have left for greener pastures I have the honor of G trying to keep our machines running. So please use small words :). Even E if I could just get a pointer in the right direction, I would greatly  appreciate it.   Kyle Barton    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:50:21 +0100 ( From: Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de>! Subject: Re: OpenVMS screenshots? / Message-ID: <du0vbs$3ed$03$1@news.t-online.com>    as400 schrieb:> > Since I now know that OpenVMS may be the most secure UNIX OSE > around...Can anyone please provide me with a link to view some nice ! > screenshots of OpenVMS? Please?  >   ; You have asked a similar question on c.s.h.hpux and I think  there was also an answer to it. : VMS/alpha looks pretty much the same as any UNIX with CDE,/ VMS/VAX has DECwindows, same as ancient Ultrix.    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 07:55:45 -0800, From: "Nomen Nescio" <geoff_one@hotmail.com>F Subject: Re: Pedophile Darrell Larose cramming his dick in boys' assesC Message-ID: <1141142144.973009.139640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    Nomen Nescio wrote: 5 > Ottawa pedophile Darrell A. Larose sockpuppeting as M > "Suppedisne@hotmail.com" wanked his little dick and ejaculated this drivel:  >  > >That's because[SLAP!] >  > Shut up, pedophile.  > A Projecting yourself again Michael?  Why don't you get a job, oh I 2 forgot your only skill is mail2news anon gateways.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:40:49 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!9 Message-ID: <SbudnSbePPaHkZnZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bob Koehler wrote:m > In article <43fd6970$0$67257$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:  > B >>*NIX does not need supervisor mode because the command language I >>interpreter does not run in the same process as the user applications.   >  > F >    That's UNIX's problem.  It means there are lot of things that youD >    can't well do.  Like setting a shell variable that will be seen >    by the parent shell.  >  > J >>*NIX protect the command language interpreter in a simpler way than VMS C >>but the *NIX way is at least as efficient.  Thus VMS uses a more  I >>complicated code to do something that could be done in a simpler.  Any  J >>security expert will tell you to keep you security related code simple, F >>so the *NIX design of running the command language interpreter is a = >>better design as seen from a purely security point of view.  >  > & >    "Any" security expert?  Not mine. > F >    If a "security expert" tells you so, then they're just don't knowI >    better.  Of course, if they work for Billy they'll claim the Windows ! >    way is more secure, instead.  > B >    Of all the "security experts" I've met, few have any idea VMSF >    exists, or how it does things.  (Pick one:  DEC's fault, Compaq'sB >    fault, HP's fault).  Most are just reguritating the hype they/ >    learned from some other "security expert".  >   E And most of the so-called security experts have emerged recently, in  E response to the openness of the internet.  I really wanted to take a  @ free shot at MS, but it's not totally their fault.  Just mostly.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:42:14 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!9 Message-ID: <SbudnSHePPbykZnZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:5 > In article <R7n2p07vkr5x@eisner.encompasserve.org>, @ > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > m >>In article <43fd6970$0$67257$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:  >>C >>>*NIX does not need supervisor mode because the command language  J >>>interpreter does not run in the same process as the user applications.  >>F >>   That's UNIX's problem.  It means there are lot of things that youD >>   can't well do.  Like setting a shell variable that will be seen >>   by the parent shell.  >  > I > That has nothing to do with wether or not Unix has a root or superviser G > user it has to do with the design of the shell.  If it was desired by K > Unix users the capabilty to define variables that can be seen system wide J > could be implemented.  But the fact is, even after all these years, Unix+ > users don't see it as anything they need.  >  > bill >   + Perhaps because they don't know any better?    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:50:57 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!/ Message-ID: <wfqdnUUYyPfmk5nZ4p2dnA@libcom.com>    Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > Bob Koehler wrote: > I >> In article <43ff7185$0$78282$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, Karsten  ( >> Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes: >> >>F >>> When programming the login script of a captive account it is very H >>> easy to make an error such that there is a security bug.  Unix does C >>> not have that problem because you can replace the shell with a  G >>> program, and that program can be written in a language without the  . >>> many pitfalls of the VMS command language. >> >> >> >>     You suggst maybe C? >>/ > Even C is better than VMS command language...  > K > If the captive account is used to run a single program, then I would let  # > Unix start that program directly.  > H > I would prefer to use a newer scripting language with a better string J > handling.  Alternatively I would start from an existing shell, that has K > already been security validated, and cut out functionality from that.  A  M > third possibilitity is finding something on the Internet, that can be used.   7 Me thinks that I disagree with your concepts and ideas.   G Anything can be improved, but the capabilities of DCL and captive user  H accounts is pretty amazing.  As for security, that's the responsibility F of the entity setting up the system, isn't it?  Isn't that always the  case, with any system.  8 I'll choose greater capabilities and flexibility anyday.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:56:27 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!/ Message-ID: <frqdnWSgYaNYkpnZRVn-qw@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:5 > In article <IlcNeqU4$uOH@eisner.encompasserve.org>, @ > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > X >>In article <4693psF9vrosU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>G >>>Don't know how to break this to you, but the mail program on my mail  >>>server does not run as root.  >>L >>   You and Andrew have the same problem.  You site one up to date counter K >>   example as if that means it isn't so on any curent UNIX.  UNIX is not  M >>   one OS.  What is so on current UNIX is so on all current UNIX, not just  . >>   on current Solaris, or current HP-UX, ... >>J >>   Whereas I cite what is so on current VMS, and it is so on all current	 >>   VMS.  >  > E > But that is the difference between proprietary and non-proprietary. A > You are right, there is no one true Unix.  But people, (here in E > particular) are perfectly comfortable to say "Unix does X" and when C > they get called on it, they say, "Well, all Unixes are differnt." G > Nice when you can have it both ways.  Just because VMS does not allow H > the flexibility that Unix allows doesn't make Unix wrong.  Many peopleC > (and there are very likely more Unix users than VMS users) prefer 8 > that flexibility.  Otherwise, they would be VMS users. >  > : >>And I still haven't seen the answer to Larry's question. >  > . > Well, the only question I see of Larry's is:C >   "How does Unix handle users attempting to overflow the password  >    history buffer ?"J > and, being as at this point in time I am only familiar with Solaris 10's@ > system and I don't see where it does.  How does VMS handle it? > B > By the way, VMS passwords still mono-case.  How do you reconcileG > that with the government requirement that passwords contain a certain G > number of upper and lower case characters?  I believe that's probably @ > a FIPS mandate too, although at this point it may only be DOD. >  > bill >   F Better to ask why the government makes a requirement that matches the I capabilities of a particular system.  Their requirements should not take  F a particular example and then declare that everyone must comply.  Not D that it worries me much, since the government at times is a dumb as ' dirt.  Just look at the current leader.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:02:46 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!/ Message-ID: <frqdnWegYaOijJnZRVn-qw@libcom.com>    Karsten Nyblad wrote:   > > In this case the problem is that you want independence from I > hardware and software vendors and because of that you want portability   > of your applications.   < Don't you just love it when someone tells you what you want?   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:25:26 +0100 ( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>: Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!+ Message-ID: <46itopFbb13qU1@individual.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:4 > I think Linux is a total waste of time and effort.     LOL. Can I quote you on that?    >  > H > There are no guarentees in life.  I have been taught to not let peopleJ > watch me change my password.  I do not watch other people change theirs,G > (probably comes from my military security background, some old habits I > are hard, if not impossible, to break) but I have never had anyone tell  > me to look away.    G I have long thought it professional courtesy to look away when someone  D is entering a password. I do remember several years ago someone not = offering me the same courtesy and it made me extremely angry.    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 14:15:53 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon): Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!+ Message-ID: <46j48pFbdqb8U3@individual.net>   + In article <46itopFbb13qU1@individual.net>, + 	Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> writes:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:5 >> I think Linux is a total waste of time and effort.  >  >  > LOL. Can I quote you on that?   . Any time you want.  I've said it enough times.   >  >>   >>  I >> There are no guarentees in life.  I have been taught to not let people K >> watch me change my password.  I do not watch other people change theirs, H >> (probably comes from my military security background, some old habitsJ >> are hard, if not impossible, to break) but I have never had anyone tell >> me to look away.    > I > I have long thought it professional courtesy to look away when someone  F > is entering a password. I do remember several years ago someone not ? > offering me the same courtesy and it made me extremely angry.    I would have told him to.    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 14:25:07 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon): Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!+ Message-ID: <46j4q2Fbdqb8U4@individual.net>   / In article <frqdnWSgYaNYkpnZRVn-qw@libcom.com>, * 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:6 >> In article <IlcNeqU4$uOH@eisner.encompasserve.org>,A >> 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:  >>  Y >>>In article <4693psF9vrosU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  >>> H >>>>Don't know how to break this to you, but the mail program on my mail  >>>>server does not run as root. >>> M >>>   You and Andrew have the same problem.  You site one up to date counter  L >>>   example as if that means it isn't so on any curent UNIX.  UNIX is not N >>>   one OS.  What is so on current UNIX is so on all current UNIX, not just / >>>   on current Solaris, or current HP-UX, ...  >>> K >>>   Whereas I cite what is so on current VMS, and it is so on all current 
 >>>   VMS. >>   >>  F >> But that is the difference between proprietary and non-proprietary.B >> You are right, there is no one true Unix.  But people, (here inF >> particular) are perfectly comfortable to say "Unix does X" and whenD >> they get called on it, they say, "Well, all Unixes are differnt."H >> Nice when you can have it both ways.  Just because VMS does not allowI >> the flexibility that Unix allows doesn't make Unix wrong.  Many people D >> (and there are very likely more Unix users than VMS users) prefer9 >> that flexibility.  Otherwise, they would be VMS users.  >>   >>  ; >>>And I still haven't seen the answer to Larry's question.  >>   >>  / >> Well, the only question I see of Larry's is: D >>   "How does Unix handle users attempting to overflow the password >>    history buffer ?" K >> and, being as at this point in time I am only familiar with Solaris 10's A >> system and I don't see where it does.  How does VMS handle it?  >>  C >> By the way, VMS passwords still mono-case.  How do you reconcile H >> that with the government requirement that passwords contain a certainH >> number of upper and lower case characters?  I believe that's probablyA >> a FIPS mandate too, although at this point it may only be DOD.  >>   >> bill  >>   > H > Better to ask why the government makes a requirement that matches the ( > capabilities of a particular system.    D Which one system are you talking about?  The only system I have hereF that is mono-case is VMS.  Seems like they picked the one that matchedD the most systems.  And we won't even take into account the fact thatD mixed case adds 26 additional symbols to the set used for passwords.  J >                                      Their requirements should not take C > a particular example and then declare that everyone must comply.    F Well, they had to choose mono or mixed case.  No other options in thatC set.  They chose the one that only leaves one system in the cold as G opposed to the one that would leave all but one in the cold.  And there + is the increased security aspect of it too.   G >                                                                  Not  F > that it worries me much, since the government at times is a dumb as ) > dirt.  Just look at the current leader.   F Got to bring politics into everything, don't we.  Of course, just like8 VMS, everyone doesn't agree with you on politics either.   bill    --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 06:25:40 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!B Message-ID: <1141136740.186397.81840@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>  $ encrypt it ... do I win a cookie? :)   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:36:40 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk: Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!) Message-ID: <du1qm8$482$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   V In article <46j4q2Fbdqb8U4@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > E >Which one system are you talking about?  The only system I have here G >that is mono-case is VMS.  Seems like they picked the one that matched E >the most systems.  And we won't even take into account the fact that E >mixed case adds 26 additional symbols to the set used for passwords.  >   H Which was countered by the fact that on lots of Unix systems the maximumO effective password length was only eight characters (until a few years ago this  included Solaris).    
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 16:00:58 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon): Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!+ Message-ID: <46jadqFbg1fdU1@individual.net>   ) In article <du1qm8$482$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, ! 	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: X > In article <46j4q2Fbdqb8U4@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>F >>Which one system are you talking about?  The only system I have hereH >>that is mono-case is VMS.  Seems like they picked the one that matchedF >>the most systems.  And we won't even take into account the fact thatF >>mixed case adds 26 additional symbols to the set used for passwords. >> > J > Which was countered by the fact that on lots of Unix systems the maximumQ > effective password length was only eight characters (until a few years ago this  > included Solaris).  J Yeah, it was for backwards compatability with systems that dated to a timeM when the space used was so expensive that trade-offs had to be made (Remember K 2 digit dates?).  Again, if backwards compatability wasn't needed there was H nothing to stop people from changing as far back as Ultrix-11 as in mostK cases Unix came with source.  People did not change it because there was no L percieved need to change it (if it ain;t broke, don't fix it).  The speed ofJ machines made a brute force attack impractical.  Once machines became fastJ enough for a brute force attack to be usable, the length changed.  One canG always look at the past and say that something we did wasn't very wise, H but when you look at it with yesterdays eyes instead of todays, the view tends to be somewhat different.   K By the way, I have to revise that.  My RSTS/E system is also monno-case and I I imagine RSX was as well.  I really don't remember if the 4331 or Primos  was.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:49:38 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukY Subject: Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linu ) Message-ID: <du12r2$pm2$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   \ In article <44038270.25E6F773@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >Hoff Hoffman wrote:J >>   but -- in terms of security -- there are only really two modes aroundI >>   that really matter.  If code is operating in supervisor mode or in a H >>   more privileged mode, then the code is inherently fully privileged. >  > G >Is this why there is no "change mode to supervisor" or "change mode to G >executive" and there is only "change mode to kernel" system services ?  > H >(aka: change mode to kernel, and then spefify a less privileged mode in >subsequent system calls.      HELP system_serv $CMEXEC   System_Services   	   $CMEXEC   H        Changes the access mode of the calling process to executive mode.  
        Format   %          SYS$CMEXEC  routin ,[arglst]           C Prototype  G          int sys$cmexec  (int (*routin)(__unknown_params), unsigned int   "                          *arglst);      %     Additional information available:   
     Arguments       
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:59:02 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Y Subject: Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linu , Message-ID: <44042CC6.197FE501@teksavvy.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:  > HELP system_serv $CMEXEC  A OK. I stand corrected. I remember needing to execute some code in E supervisor mode and that was unavailable and I had to use a much more C powerful "change mode" than I needed and then make sure I specified ? "PSL$_EXEC (or whetever) in system calls to downgrade the mode.    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 13:57:49 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46j36sFbdqb8U1@individual.net>   C In article <1141094418.585679.265050@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, ' 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F >> In article <1141082595.559315.241030@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,* >> 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes: >> > >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote: A >> >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 1 >> >> 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >> >> >  >> >> >  >> >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >> >  >> >> >>N >> >> >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is notM >> >> >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming here M >> >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has N >> >> >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again,  >> >> >> what's your point?  :-) >> >> > P >> >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even someK >> >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to . >> >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and... >> >> 7 >> >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.  >> > >> >J >> > Well, I for one would simply like to understand *why* HP doesn't wantH >> > to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harmI >> > would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in sales J >> > would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still notH >> > going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales, >> > would it not? >> >J >> > Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any majorI >> > marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact that H >> > the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:	 >> > WHY?  >>J >> Because VMS is obviously not the direction they want the company to go. >> Ray Charles could see that!!  > D > I acknowledged that. So they won't push VMS because that's not theC > direction they want the company to go. So why don't they want the I > company to go that way? (Which is what I thought I asked in my previous  > post.) >   I Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's?  Refridgerators?  Light bulbs? F The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction theI company will take.  Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?) H doesn't mean their wrong.  I am sure they have their reasons, and again,H while I am sure we would not agree with them, it just isn't our decisionG to make.  The big thing becomes what are you (we) going to do about it? I Contrary to what some people here would like to believe, we are not going L to change the course of the good ship HP.  It is really time to start making8 plans that take this into consideration, like it or not.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:03:50 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) / Message-ID: <rMednRITzpqMDZnZRVn-pw@libcom.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Rob Young wrote: > E >>        Come on purse your lips... give us a "death of VMS."   Just P >>        for old times sake.   The good old days of "VMS death", ah... I harken >>        back:  >  >  >  > I > You may have quotes stuff from archives out of context, and some text I I > don't ever recall ever having typed. But guess what is more important :  > $ > JF ramblings and interpretations ? >  > OR >  > G > Rich Marcello announcing that HP doesn't see any growth potential for ; > VMS and is only keeping it for remaining installed base ?  >  >  > F > Rich Marcello's statement is authoritative of HP policies, just likeD > Stallard stating that HP expected VMS customer to migrate to HP-UXC > (later changed to HP helping VMS customers who want to migrate to G > HP-UX), or Winkler's "Windows will eviscerate the underbelly... "????  >  > G > When HP officially annoucnes it sees no growth potential for VMS, and G > when information was recently let out that the installed bas had been E > "consolidated" from 400k down to 300k systems,  guess what the bean / > counters at HP will start calculating ???????    Seriously JF, get a life!   H It's amusing how you change what someone says so you can then go off on @ one of your rants.  But let's get back to exactly what was said.  E Rich said that VMS was not seen as a """HUGH""" growth business.  He  I didn't say it was not a growth business.  He could consider it a 'large'  F growth opportunity, and still be correct in saying it is not a 'hugh' 2 growth opportunity.  Or at other levels of growth.  H To give some perspective, in the last 12-18 months, AMD-64 was a 'hugh' D growth business, cutting deeply into Intel's market numbers.  While F anything is possible, I don't see VMS being capable of such a growth, F even if large numbers of businesses wanted to ditch Microsoft.  There K just isn't the capability, applications, and such to allow a 'hugh' growth.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 18:52:41 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46jkfoFbgpt5U1@individual.net>   / In article <rMednQwTzpq5D5nZRVn-pw@libcom.com>, * 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F >> In article <1141082595.559315.241030@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,* >> 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes: >>   >>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >>> ? >>>>In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, / >>>>	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >>>> >>>>>  >>>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >>>>>  >>>>> K >>>>>>Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is not J >>>>>>marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming hereJ >>>>>>over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) hasK >>>>>>not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again,  >>>>>>what's your point?  :-)  >>>>> M >>>>>For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some H >>>>>real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to+ >>>>>grow. Then the campaign stopped and...  >>>>5 >>>>And that shold tell everyone here something, too.  >>>> >>>>bill >>>  >>> H >>>Well, I for one would simply like to understand *why* HP doesn't wantF >>>to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harmG >>>would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in sales H >>>would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still notF >>>going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales, >>>would it not? >>> H >>>Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any majorG >>>marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact that F >>>the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is: >>>WHY?  >>   >>  J >> Because VMS is obviously not the direction they want the company to go. >> Ray Charles could see that!!  >>   >>   >> bill  >>   > M > What happened to the days when a company followed (wanted to go) the money?   F We don't know that that is not where they are headed.  After all, theyD have information the rest of us don't have.  Just because we all seeF VMS as the big winner doesn't make it so.  in their eyes, it couold be5 a real looser and that would control their direction.    bill      --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:19:40 GMT > From: andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Ekl=F6f?=)1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! ; Message-ID: <1hbgr6x.1w2kievq0yxnyN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>    To the OP (bob):  H The article does not mention OpenVMS, so what is this thread doing here.H I have never seen any claim that OS X would be more secure than OpenVMS.G I guess I didn't look too hard as I don't find the comparison relevant. F The relevant comparison is of course that in the article - to Windows.  F Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing <winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:  8 > In article <44038105.73C4542C@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ( > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > >Bob Koehler wrote: E > >>    Back when VMS was The OS Of Choice, it had the most powerfull H > >>    applications, the best global network connectivity, and the most > >>    resource sites.  > >>  ! > >>    It was secure, even then.  > >  > >  > >Kevin Mitnick. F > >What was the name of that famous virus to make it to VMS ?  WANK ?  > I > Technically a worm rather than a virus (as the very name acknowledged).   - Let's not get hooked up on techie terms here. C Most widespread Windows "viruses" are actually worms (or Trojans).  H So are the Inqtana and Leap thingies. And they are still "only" proof ofH concept. They still have to find out how to get any payload working - atG least outside the user's realm. Of course that time will come. There no B holiday - if there ever has been - but we're still rather cool :-)  G There are real threats to OS X too, mainly hacker scripts and rootkits. H And they have been around for some time, too. But so far they seem to beD dependant on the really soft spot of the computer - ignorant users !  G Absolutely nothing beats a poor (or blank) admin password when it comes B to breaking in to a remote computer. That goes for VMS, BSD, OS X, WinXP, Linux - you name it.   E And we all know which system gives you permanent BYPASS priviliges by H default when you log in to an admin account, and doesn't even prompt youC to create a password when you setup the account in the first place.    --  5 I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines  . to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:33:31 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! ) Message-ID: <du18tr$s4t$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   | In article <1hbgr6x.1w2kievq0yxnyN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>, andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Ekl=F6f?=) writes: >To the OP (bob):  > I >The article does not mention OpenVMS, so what is this thread doing here. I >I have never seen any claim that OS X would be more secure than OpenVMS.   D Then you haven't been following the "What's more secure ? OpenVMS orO OpenBSD ?"  thread started by the user as400 in which he rated MAC OS-X as more ; secure than OpenBSD and asked about how secure OpenVMS was.    see   @ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/a4af83e8b036328a   D and later said that he thought MAC OS-X was more secure than OpenVMS  @ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/3e9df4ef9f3d3c20       
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University    H >I guess I didn't look too hard as I don't find the comparison relevant.G >The relevant comparison is of course that in the article - to Windows.  > G >Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing <winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  >wrote:  > 9 >> In article <44038105.73C4542C@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei  ) >> <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:  >> >Bob Koehler wrote:F >> >>    Back when VMS was The OS Of Choice, it had the most powerfullI >> >>    applications, the best global network connectivity, and the most  >> >>    resource sites. >> >> " >> >>    It was secure, even then. >> > >> > >> >Kevin Mitnick.G >> >What was the name of that famous virus to make it to VMS ?  WANK ?   >>  J >> Technically a worm rather than a virus (as the very name acknowledged). > . >Let's not get hooked up on techie terms here.D >Most widespread Windows "viruses" are actually worms (or Trojans). I >So are the Inqtana and Leap thingies. And they are still "only" proof of I >concept. They still have to find out how to get any payload working - at H >least outside the user's realm. Of course that time will come. There noC >holiday - if there ever has been - but we're still rather cool :-)  > H >There are real threats to OS X too, mainly hacker scripts and rootkits.I >And they have been around for some time, too. But so far they seem to be E >dependant on the really soft spot of the computer - ignorant users !  > H >Absolutely nothing beats a poor (or blank) admin password when it comesC >to breaking in to a remote computer. That goes for VMS, BSD, OS X,  >WinXP, Linux - you name it.   > F >And we all know which system gives you permanent BYPASS priviliges byI >default when you log in to an admin account, and doesn't even prompt you D >to create a password when you setup the account in the first place. >  >-- 6 >I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines / >to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 07:43:45 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! 3 Message-ID: <2Y7GQkKCO4XH@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <44038105.73C4542C@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Bob Koehler wrote:C >>    Back when VMS was The OS Of Choice, it had the most powerfull F >>    applications, the best global network connectivity, and the most >>    resource sites.  >>   >>    It was secure, even then.  >  >  > Kevin Mitnick.  7    Yep. even VMS can't stop social engineering attacks.   E > What was the name of that famous virus to make it to VMS ?  WANK ?    F    One of two security issues in VMS that have hit close to home.  AndE    the WANK worm was propagated via poor security practices that were 9    made difficult (by design) in the next release of VMS.    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 14:12:27 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! + Message-ID: <46j42bFbdqb8U2@individual.net>   / Well, as my one contribution to this thread....   E It has been pointed out that in order for this virus to work you have E to type the root password into a prompt popup.  People here have been E amazed at readily Mac users will do this.  We have one Mac using prof E here.  I mentioned this to him (mostly as a warning) and was informed D that the Mac prompts for the root password all the time.  Unless youF are running as root (not recommended) every time you do something thatG wold require root priveledges it merely asks for the password.  Can you E say "Pavlov's dogs"?  After doing this several dozen times, most Mac  C users probably reach a point where they do it without even thinking / much less considering the possible consequence.   
 Interesting!!    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 06:29:55 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! B Message-ID: <1141136995.335799.36290@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>  D have you ever noticed these are the only two examples which are overE 20 years old now that people ever mention in relation to vms security C problems ... not bad, only two they can think of in 20 years ... :)    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:09:24 +1030 * From: Mark Daniel <mark.daniel@vsm.com.au>1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! 0 Message-ID: <1208qgi621dbldf@corp.supernews.com>  - Wonderfully erudite and amusing sig.  Thanks.    Anders Eklf wrote: 
 8< snip 8< --  4 I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines. to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 06:19:08 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> % Subject: Testing of bit fields in DCL , Message-ID: <4404317A.8163592B@teksavvy.com>  A Looking at the QUEUE_STATUS item code from a F$GETQUI, one gets a  longword with a binary value.   ( the QUIDEF macro defines those statuses.  G For instance, a value of 514 is really 2 values: 512 = QUEUE_SERVER and  2 = QUEUE_IDDLE   C There are 22 bits defined (maybe more in more recent version of the 0 documentation, but I am using BOOKREADER stuff).  G To build a string that contains text of all bits, is there a better way  that the stuff below ?  0 $IF (X .and. 1) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = "ALIGNING "5 $IF (X .and. 2) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "IDLE " ; $IF (X .and. 4) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "LOWERRCASE " A $IF (X .and. 8) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "OPERATOR_REQUEST "  ... B $IF (X .and. 2097152) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "STOP_PENDING"    E I guess I could make a long coma delimited string of all statuses and @ then loop 22 times, incrementing the bit value * 2 each time andK incrementing the counter for F$ELEMENT to extract the corresponding string.     # Is there a simpler way to do this ?    ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:48:21 -0600 (CST) * From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)) Subject: Re: Testing of bit fields in DCL 2 Message-ID: <06022805482113_20331674@antinode.org>  - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   % > Is there a simpler way to do this ?   E    Perhaps not, but there's an easy way to stop when you've found all D the "1" bits.  It might also pay to test them in a particular order,2 depending on which bits are more likely to be set.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:03:50 +0000 0 From: Chris Sharman <chris.sharman@sorry.nospam>) Subject: Re: Testing of bit fields in DCL 3 Message-ID: <du1hnn$vt$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>    JF Mezei wrote: C > Looking at the QUEUE_STATUS item code from a F$GETQUI, one gets a  > longword with a binary value.  > * > the QUIDEF macro defines those statuses. > I > For instance, a value of 514 is really 2 values: 512 = QUEUE_SERVER and  > 2 = QUEUE_IDDLE  > E > There are 22 bits defined (maybe more in more recent version of the 2 > documentation, but I am using BOOKREADER stuff). > I > To build a string that contains text of all bits, is there a better way  > that the stuff below ? > 2 > $IF (X .and. 1) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = "ALIGNING "7 > $IF (X .and. 2) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "IDLE " = > $IF (X .and. 4) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "LOWERRCASE " C > $IF (X .and. 8) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "OPERATOR_REQUEST "  > ... D > $IF (X .and. 2097152) .ne. 0 THEN STRING = STRING + "STOP_PENDING" >  > G > I guess I could make a long coma delimited string of all statuses and B > then loop 22 times, incrementing the bit value * 2 each time andM > incrementing the counter for F$ELEMENT to extract the corresponding string.  > % > Is there a simpler way to do this ?   = $ bitstring := "aligning,idle,lowercase,operator_request,..."  $ i = 0 	 $ xs = ""  $ xs[0,32]=x
 $ sts = ""F $loop: if f$cvui(i,1,xs).ne.0 then $ sts=sts+f$el(i,",",bitstring)+" " $ i = i + 1  $ if i.lt.22 then $ goto loop   ' Not much simpler, but another approach. ; There's also boolean values available for many of the bits:   C $ if f$getq("display_queue","queue_idle","sys$print") then $ write   sys$output "idle"   + Simplest of all, of course, is $ show queue ? DCL wouldn't be my first choice for reinventing the show queue   functionality.   Chris    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:49:40 -0500 " From: "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com>1 Subject: Version 8.2 and CREATE/MAILBOX/TEMPORARY 0 Message-ID: <120939lkvashlb3@corp.supernews.com>  H The version 8.2 release notes make note of the CREATE/MAILBOX/TEMPORARY I function requiring CMEXEC ... is this 8.2 only, was it there in previous  M versions...?  Does not seem to have been put in just for 8.2 and then set to   disapear in a new version?   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:55:00 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) 5 Subject: Re: Version 8.2 and CREATE/MAILBOX/TEMPORARY 1 Message-ID: <801Nf.3804$1D1.678@news.cpqcorp.net>   U In article <120939lkvashlb3@corp.supernews.com>, "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> writes: I :The version 8.2 release notes make note of the CREATE/MAILBOX/TEMPORARY  J :function requiring CMEXEC ... is this 8.2 only, was it there in previous N :versions...?  Does not seem to have been put in just for 8.2 and then set to  :disapear in a new version?   D   CREATE/MAILBOX is new in V8.2, if that's your question.  I do not E   believe that it was intentional to require CMEXEC for the command,  ;   however.  See below (from V8.2-1) for related statements:      CREATE  
   /MAILBOX  ,        Valid for Alpha and I64 systems only.  F        Creates a virtual mailbox named MBAn and assigns an I/O channel8        number to it. The /MAILBOX qualifier is required.  *                                       NOTE  0           The following privileges are required:  E           o  TMPMBX (temporary mailbox) to create a temporary mailbox #              (which is the default)   D           o  CMEXEC (change mode to executive) to create a temporaryF              mailbox (which is the default). Note: This requirement is?              temporary and will be removed in a future release.   E           o  PRMMBX (permanent mailbox) to create a permanent mailbox -              (using the /PERMANENT qualifier)   E           o  SYSNAM (system logical name) to place a logical name for 7              a mailbox in the system logical name table   F           o  GRPNAM (group logical name) to place a logical name for a4              mailbox in the group logical name table  ;        To delete a mailbox, use the DELETE/MAILBOX command.  	...    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G        Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[\0100]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:40:08 -0600 - From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@goatley.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? 8 Message-ID: <sJVMf.9385$eQ3.2342@bignews4.bellsouth.net>   Martin Vorlaender wrote:  > <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote... >> TCPware has the latest bind > 6 > TCPware (and Multinet, too) BIND implementations are > still based on version 8.x. + > Certainly NOT the latest and most secure.  > ; Work is proceeding on BIND 9 for both TCPware and MultiNet.    Hunter ------9 Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ B PreciseMail Anti-Spam Gateway for OpenVMS, Tru64, Solaris, & Linux9 goathunter@goatley.com     http://www.goatley.com/hunter/    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.118 ************************