1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 23 Nov 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 644       Contents:) Re: deleing messages in Office Server 6.1 ) Re: deleing messages in Office Server 6.1 
 Re: DLT-V4
 Re: DLT-V4, Re: increase in spam and what to do about it, Re: increase in spam and what to do about it, Re: increase in spam and what to do about it, Re: increase in spam and what to do about it, Re: increase in spam and what to do about it, Re: increase in spam and what to do about it$ Re: Is HP trying to kill VMS again ?$ Re: Is HP trying to kill VMS again ? Re: OpenVMS Clustering Question  OpenVMS Integrity Webinar  Re: OpenVMS Integrity Webinar - Re: Oracle 9i and VMS multihome configuration - SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory 1 Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory 1 Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory  Re: Testing for mobile device - Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales - Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales - Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales - Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales 2 Re: Using SYS$INPUT for input into an FTP command.2 Re: Using SYS$INPUT for input into an FTP command., Re: Western Dayligh Time. Starts in 12 days!, Re: Western Dayligh Time. Starts in 12 days!  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 22 Nov 2006 20:34:54 -0800 From: tomarsin2015@comcast.net2 Subject: Re: deleing messages in Office Server 6.1B Message-ID: <1164256494.163597.80590@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   Thanks JF I owe you a million. phillip  JF Mezei wrote: ! > tomarsin2015@comcast.net wrote:  > > inbox I have almost 8000J > > messages. I read the users guide but cannot find the command to delete > > all unread messages.H > > If I do a XD (Delete all Select) it tells me that I need to read the > > message. >  > H > Go into the ALLIN1 account, ALLIN1/USER=MANAGER, then MUA (Manage UserH > Accounts). Select your personal account, then edit it.  Go thorugh the@ > various pages of your profile until you find the section aboutI > confirmations. "Delete Unread Mail" should be set to Y (seems that this * > isn't a confirmation but rather a flag). > M > To select all messages: (once back in your account), EM II to get the index H > of your inbox. Then in the menu line type 1-8000 and press the SEL keyO > (select). This will select messages from 1 to 8000 and you can then do an XD.  > 4 > If you have the right A1 privileges, you can also: > : > [GOLD][KP-7] This gives you a command mode entry, there: > @ > FOR CAB$ WITH .FOLDER EQS "INBOX" DO CAB DELETE_DOCUMENT .%key > J > Note that the "XD" operation does a CAB DELETE_OR_REFILE operation whichL > just moves the document to the "WASTEBASKET" folder which sits there untilK > you eother do a EW (empty wastebastet) or the mail janitor runs in batch.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:11:32 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 2 Subject: Re: deleing messages in Office Server 6.17 Message-ID: <e7169$45652d78$cef8887a$5636@TEKSAVVY.COM>    tomarsin2015@comcast.net wrote:   > Thanks JF I owe you a million.  L Can you send it via Paypal ? Or does that amount require you write a cheque L ? If you could get it to me before christmas, it would greatly help with my    christmas shopping ;-)   ------------------------------   Date: 22 Nov 2006 20:31:15 GMT From: healyzh@aracnet.com  Subject: Re: DLT-V4 + Message-ID: <ek2c2j0mcq@enews3.newsguy.com>   ( David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu> wrote:F > channel disks to the old SDLT320 had a sustained write rate of just > > under 22Mb/s, whereas the replacement DLT-S4 sustains writes  K We've managed sustained times faster than this on SDLT320 drives, it really B depends on what is pushing the data, and how it gets to the drive.  I > The V4 is around $1000 new (depending on enclosure) and the S4 is $5000 H > for a new bare drive.  Not surprisingly, one must pay for performance.  E Depending on the hardware being backed up, the V4 might be the better L choice, simply becuase it is slower.  You *really* want to be able to keep aL DLT/SDLT drive streaming so that you don't get 'shoe-shinning' of the heads.   	Zane    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:57:13 -0800 ' From: David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu>  Subject: Re: DLT-V4 + Message-ID: <ek2o4p$6ec$1@naig.caltech.edu>    healyzh@aracnet.com wrote: > G > Depending on the hardware being backed up, the V4 might be the better N > choice, simply becuase it is slower.  You *really* want to be able to keep aN > DLT/SDLT drive streaming so that you don't get 'shoe-shinning' of the heads.  > There are better ways of dealing with that problem than buying/ a slow drive.  Google for:  mathog mbin mbuffer    Regards,   David Mathog   ------------------------------   Date: 22 Nov 2006 18:56:07 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it / Message-ID: <4sjkq6FvvilfU1@mid.individual.net>   B In article <1164209725.524594.74340@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, 	davidc@montagar.com writes: >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F >> In article <1164168707.352713.194240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> 	davidc@montagar.com writes: L >> > What I would like to do is have a DNS server that does an RBL check forF >> > every host requesting an MX lookup.  If it's on the RBL, return a> >> > 127.0.0.1 as the prefered MTA!  Save me a lot of traffic. >>B >> The problem with that is that machines can become infected much+ >> faster then the RBL's can learn of them.  > 6 > I know, but it would still save me a lot of traffic.  E Not to mention all the legitimate emails that your server will reject C because your potential customer is using an ISP that happens to get  itself "blacklisted".    >  >>  This is not a technical D >> problem it is a social problem.  There are no technical solutions3 >> to social problems.  It takes a social solution.  > : > There are technical solutions that can help quite a bit.  G As fast as you can come up with a trechnical solution the spammers will F come up with a way around it.  It has to be stopped at the source, and@ there is no technical way of doing that.  There is a social way.  G > Unfortunately, that would require a technical solution from Microsoft C > that would harden their Windows platform, as the vast majority of < > zombies are Billy-boxes.  ISP's could be more proactive inG > identification and isolation of zombies, but they don't have the guts G > to do it (even if they just blocked port 25, that would solve a lot).   D Both of these can be fixed with my social solution.  Right now thereC is no incentive for any ISP to fix any of this while there are many  incentives not to.     > H > The big social problem is that just enough people BUY from these scamsE > to make them profitable enough (even if only the gambling sense - I F > almost won all my money back, so just one more spam run and I should > finally hit to big one!).   G Actually, I saw an interview on the news with a commercial spammer.  he E said all it took was .1% return for him to make a profit.  Of course, H that leaves the other 99.9% (us) having to deal with it.  It will alwaysE be profitable for the spammer, which is why it must be stopped at the H source.  Right now it costs them nothing to send out 100,000,000 emails.D The only solution is to remove that conduit so they can't send them.   >  >> That solutionB >> is for email to only be exchanged between consenting sysadmins.E >> And when someone violates the consent agreement, you cut them off.  > G > The problem is creating the "trust relationships" in the first place, G > when you have a userbase which is orders of magnitude larger than the  > original UUCP network.    C Personally, I doubt that the useful base of legitimate mailhosts is D "orders of magnitude" larger.  The actual number of users has littleD if any effect on the "trust relationships".  It is the admins of theF mailhosts themselves that establish the trust.  Much like what is done Usenet News today.  I >                        And unless you smart-hosted, generating paths to G > nodes was rather pain-staking - but someone had to do it so you could   > figure out the "trusted" path.  D But that would be much easier to do today as basicly anyone can talkF to anyone, from the technical standpoint.  We could have central hubs,D like what was done by seismo in the old days, but they would be moreC of a conveninece than a necessity.  I am not saying everyone has to D have an explicit agreement with everyone else with whom they wish toI exchange emial.  I am saying that there needs to be an explicit agreement F drawn up that everyone who wishes to take part must sign (as a legallyD binding document) in order to exchange mail with anyone in the EmailB network.  Once you join the network, peering is can be left to theA individual admins.  Again, much like Usenet News, but with a much  stricter and enforcable AUP.   > G > When the predominate problem was with "trusted hosts", i.e. most mail H > running through an ISP's mail servers, the spam wasn't as bad and even > RBL's more effective.   E If only it were so.  While much of the spam coming into my mailserver E comes from the proverbial "rogue" PC I get a considerable amount from E ISP's who really have no problem with spammers.  The profit currently  outweighs the potential cost.    D >                       Even early in the battle with Walt Rines andG > Sanford Wallace, there was substantial blackholing of the entire AGIS B > backbone (a very string social statement) against spam and their. > support to two of the worst known offenders.  L And who paid the price?  What effect did this have on AGIS legitimate users?   > F > The problem is today, you can't take that kind of risk with 99.9% ofF > your customers getting their e-mail dropped because that 0.1% causedA > you to lose your trust relationships and got you blacklisted.     > Sorry, ISP's don't see it that way.  It's all about the money.= As long as there is money in spam they will support the 0.1%. ? There are some major ISP's that show up on RBL's and do nothing < to get back off them.  Why?  Because there are still lots of? email servers that don't use RBL's or can't because of the very = reason you cite above.  That leaves lots of potential targets ? and, anyway, as long as the spammers are willing to pay for the @ connection and service, why would the ISP care if the email ever gets delivered?   F >                                                                 ThatI > doesn't mean they can't identify and isolate that 0.1%, but the problem G > is getting harder and more frequently occuring than ever before (i.e.  > the new SpamThru trojan).   D Which comes back to why it has to be stopped at the point of origin.B And we won't even get into the load on the whole infrastructure ofC rejecting at the destination rather than stopping it at the source.    > E >> Being as every schmuck on the INTERNET should not be sending Email C >> from their desktop PC this system is not as complex as you might 	 >> think.  > D > Which is why ISP's should route all port 25 through their own mailD > servers so they can help isolate the culprits rather than let themI > loose.  But because of potential social repercussions, they don't/can't 
 > do that.  C And why is that?  Because right now, under the current system there F is no penalty for allowing it and a percieved penalty for stopping it.   > G > Social solutions are can only be part of the solution.  The technical I > ability to zombie a box has got to be eliminated/reduced as well.  That D > is Gates true legacy - a world full of insecure systems subjectingG > everyone else to spam, DDoS attacks, fraud, identify theft, and more.   A I don't agree on two points.  I don't beleive that "The technical @ ability to zombie a box has got to be eliminated/reduced".  And,E moreover, I don't beleive that "The technical ability to zombie a box  can be eliminated/reduced".   F I think the big problem with people accepting my idea up to this pointG is more a matter of them thinking it is an all or nothing deal.  That's E not true.  This can easily be phased in over time.  Once you start to C establish your "trusted mailhosts" you can continue to accept email D from the open INTERNET or, you can choose much more draconian filterE methods or, you can just stop accepting mail from outside the system. H All of it is at the choice of the sysadmin (with or without the approvalF of his userbase.)  hey, I have n o problem with spammers sending theirE junk to all my neighbors.  Who knows, maybe they comprise the .1% who E actually want it.  I just want the utility of email that I had in the D original Usenet days back.  There will be a market for mail servicesF that offer spam free accounts (like gmail, only without the ability toC send spam) they will be different and definitely not anonymous, but D then, with priviledge comes responsibility.  In any event, somethingD has to be done or email will become useless for real communications.   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: 22 Nov 2006 20:10:22 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it 0 Message-ID: <4sjp5dF105kfrU1@mid.individual.net>  9 In article <dt6dnSYDN-NU-_nYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@libcom.com>, * 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:; >> In article <7d7b6$45639ef8$cef8887a$10159@teksavvy.com>, 3 >> 	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: 3 >>> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: L >>>> Has anyone else noticed a large increase in spam in the last few weeks?Y >>> http://news.com.com/Tis+the+season+to+send+spam/2100-7349_3-6136901.html?tag=nefd.top  >>>  >>> R >>> Very interesting article on spam volumes increasing for this christmas season. >>> M >>> The volumes are now up to 819 terabytes of spam per day, compared to 275   >>> per day a year ago.  >>> P >>> Researchers found evidence that about 73,000 computers in 166 countries are M >>> part of the SpamThru botnet, adding up to a mighty spam cannon. (This is  L >>> some virus which transform an innocent PC in to a member of a centrally L >>> controlled spamming network whene central servers provide templates etc. >>> I >>> I can attest to the "cannon" thing. When spam hits my machine, it is  G >>> usually in bursts lasting a few minutes con constant call attempts.  >>> M >>> Reducing the number of concurent sessiosn my SMTO server will handle has  K >>> reduced the attacks. After two calls, the subquent ones fail until the  9 >>> first 2 have ended their unsuccesful delivey attempt.  >>> M >>> BTW, they often harvest email adresses in a very dumb way which includes   >>> usenet message ids.  >>>   >>> Re: RBLs are very efficient. >>> B >>> Here is my smtp.config : ( a few things not available in 5.4 ) >>> . >>> $ type $disk4:[sys0.tcpip$smtp]smtp.config >>> Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8  >>> Bad-Clients: 220.144.0.0/16, >>>          200.45.190.0/23 >>> !  >>> ! Chinanet >>> Bad-Clients: 58.0.0.0/8, >>>          59.0.0.0/8, >>>          60.0.0.0/8, >>>          218.66.0.0/15,  >>>          220.160.0.0/11, >>>          220.192.0.0/10, >>>          221.0.0.0/8,  >>>          222.0.0.0/8,  >>>          61.12.0.0/16, >>>          61.206.0.0/16 >>> !  >>> Relay-Zones: vaxination.ca" >>> Relay-Zones: www.vaxination.ca! >>> Relay-Zones: gw.vaxination.ca  >>> ! & >>> Reject-Unbacktranslatable-IP: TRUE0 >>> Accept-Mail-From: <email address of friends> >>> SPAM-Action: ACCOUNTING  >>> Security: FRIENDLY >>> RBLs: combined.njabl.org >>> RBLs: sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org >>> Allow-EXPN: NEVER  >>> Allow-VRFY: LOCALLY ) >>> Symbiont-Checks-Deliverability: FALSE  >>> Try-A-Records: IFNOMX  >>> !  >>> ! D >>> Unbacktranslatable-IP-Text: Can't backtranslate SMTP server's IP9 >>> Client-In-RBL-Text: SMTP server is blacklisted in RBL A >>> Bad-Clients-Text: Your network is blocked: sent too much SPAM = >>> Unqualified-Sender-Text: Sender's email address illformed @ >>> Unresolvable-Domain-Text: Sender's email domain unresolvableM >>> SPAM-Relay-Text: This facility does not tolerate spammers, relay disabled P >>> EXPN-Used-Text: Environmental regulations forbid the Mining of distribution 	 >>> lists 1 >>> VRFY-Used-Text: Spammers are not welcome here  >>  J >> There is a perfect way to get email back under control.  Go back to theK >> old way it was done in the original USENET days (Yes, Email predates the J >> INTERNET).  Setup mail maps again and have email exchanged only betweenM >> agreeing hosts.  That would immediately eliminate the ability for infected K >> machines on the INTERNET to send email anywhere.  It would eliminate the K >> need for RBL's as it would take explicit permission to inject email into N >> the system.  People who don't want to play by the rules get shunned.  Works >> fine for the Amish!!  >>   >> bill  >>   >>   >  > A rather drastic solution.  I Drastic?  How so?  It merely calls for mailhost sysadmins to do something I that people have been doing since the beginning of civilization.  Picking 1 who they will and who they will not commune with.    > D > Consider, an entity (not a spammer) that has not gone through the I > process of setting up an e-mail agreement with you, who wishes to send  7 > you an e-mail, which you might be pleased to receive.   I I hardly expect every user on the INTERNET to establish an agreement with D every other user.  Users don't control the flow of email anyway, theI admins do.  And, there is always the rest of the INTERNET if you need it. F There are people who wish to speak with me now who can't because theirH ISP has gotten itself "blacklisted".  If they really have a valid reasonI to reach me they usually use another email account on another systems.  I F have no problem looking in my logs and telling them why their originalF got rejected.  I have yet to have any of their ISP's do anything aboutI it.  How much legitimate traffic is lost to people's local spam filters?     > I > Consider, an entity that you have reason to contact, but don't have an   > agreement with.   H Same as above.  The INTERNET way of doing email is not going to go away.H But it is unlikely that this will occur.  Look at the current situation.G You have people using USENET (and even on their webpages) munging their E email address in such a way that the majority of INTERNET users can't G send them email. (Believe it or not, the majority of email users do not I know enough about email addresses to fix these practices.  They hit reply G and if it doesn't work, they either give up or come looking for someone + like me to tell them why it didn't work.) i   G If this actually got started, I think it would take a rather short time G before the majority of the serious (and that includes commercial) email  traffic was moved over to it.    > K > I agree that spam is a problem.  Your solution would cripple the concept  K > of e-mail, as it's now implemented.  (I won't deny that spam has already   > crippled e-mail.)   B I assume you are seeing this as an all or nothing proposition.  ItC wouldn't have to be that way.  You can always use the old way.  The B big question really is after giving it time to get going, how many! serious email users will want to.    > D > A better method for 'shunning' spammers might be more appropriate.  A Without a strong AUP agreed to up front, there is nothing you can C do at the originators end.  And that is where it has to be stopped.    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: 22 Nov 2006 12:42:10 -0800 From: davidc@montagar.com 5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it C Message-ID: <1164228129.949473.153320@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:D > In article <1164209725.524594.74340@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > 	davidc@montagar.com writes:G > Not to mention all the legitimate emails that your server will reject E > because your potential customer is using an ISP that happens to get  > itself "blacklisted".   E Which is the same set of "potential customers" - I'm just testing the  RBL at a different place.   < > > There are technical solutions that can help quite a bit. > I > As fast as you can come up with a trechnical solution the spammers will H > come up with a way around it.  It has to be stopped at the source, andB > there is no technical way of doing that.  There is a social way.  D SPF is one of the social ways (setting up a trust relationship), but& spammers are getting around that, too.  F > Both of these can be fixed with my social solution.  Right now thereE > is no incentive for any ISP to fix any of this while there are many  > incentives not to.  ? Then the social solution (valid or not) is socially unaccepted.   J > > The big social problem is that just enough people BUY from these scamsG > > to make them profitable enough (even if only the gambling sense - I H > > almost won all my money back, so just one more spam run and I should > > finally hit to big one!).  > I > Actually, I saw an interview on the news with a commercial spammer.  he G > said all it took was .1% return for him to make a profit.  Of course, J > that leaves the other 99.9% (us) having to deal with it.  It will alwaysG > be profitable for the spammer, which is why it must be stopped at the J > source.  Right now it costs them nothing to send out 100,000,000 emails.F > The only solution is to remove that conduit so they can't send them.  E Unless you charge per e-mail, there's nothing removing the conduit or E preventing its abuse.  But then you penalize good people just for the  sake of banning the bad people.   G And yes, the response rates don't have to be big when you can case that  wide of a net.  A How do you stop it at the source?  Which is the spammer, himself?   E > Personally, I doubt that the useful base of legitimate mailhosts is F > "orders of magnitude" larger.  The actual number of users has littleF > if any effect on the "trust relationships".  It is the admins of theH > mailhosts themselves that establish the trust.  Much like what is done > Usenet News today.  F Well, given the size of the internet, number of attached companies, itD much larger than it was back when I first go my internet connection.G What what's to keep a spammer from signing on an ISP and violating that F trust, causing other mailhosts to block them?  Years ago panix, epoch,B and many other ISP's played constant whack-a-mole against spammersG creating accounts on their networks.  Many of the current RBL's already G do this kind of "trust relationship" with known mail hosts, too.  We've  already done that.  F > But that would be much easier to do today as basicly anyone can talkH > to anyone, from the technical standpoint.  We could have central hubs,F > like what was done by seismo in the old days, but they would be moreE > of a conveninece than a necessity.  I am not saying everyone has to F > have an explicit agreement with everyone else with whom they wish toK > exchange emial.  I am saying that there needs to be an explicit agreement H > drawn up that everyone who wishes to take part must sign (as a legallyF > binding document) in order to exchange mail with anyone in the EmailD > network.  Once you join the network, peering is can be left to theC > individual admins.  Again, much like Usenet News, but with a much  > stricter and enforcable AUP.  D So, how do you get everyone that wants to send email to sign an AUP,F and who do they sign it with?  After all, who would the enforcing body2 be?  We have ISP's and providers with AUP's today.  F Usenet news isn't good example, since it's been rampant with spam evenD before e-mail (remember the Brierbart Index and Cancelmoose?  Canter
 and Seigel?).   G > If only it were so.  While much of the spam coming into my mailserver G > comes from the proverbial "rogue" PC I get a considerable amount from G > ISP's who really have no problem with spammers.  The profit currently  > outweighs the potential cost.   < True, but those ISP's can be (and likely are) RBL'd against.  F > >                       Even early in the battle with Walt Rines andI > > Sanford Wallace, there was substantial blackholing of the entire AGIS D > > backbone (a very string social statement) against spam and their0 > > support to two of the worst known offenders. > N > And who paid the price?  What effect did this have on AGIS legitimate users?  F Wasn't pretty.  But that was the "social solution" at the time.  SinceE people didn't know where they would appear on AGIS networks, more and E more places blackholed all AGIS networks.  AGIS eventually was forced F to drop them, and they then promised to create the "SPAM-bone" so theyE could run all the spam on it they wanted.  Getting peers proved to be  problematic.  @ > Sorry, ISP's don't see it that way.  It's all about the money.? > As long as there is money in spam they will support the 0.1%.   G Sometimes it's not the money, but the expense.  Chasing and terminating D spammers takes time and effort.  Then they just get a new account orE you end up with a new batch.  Eventually, it just cost less to ignore  it.   A > There are some major ISP's that show up on RBL's and do nothing > > to get back off them.  Why?  Because there are still lots ofA > email servers that don't use RBL's or can't because of the very ? > reason you cite above.  That leaves lots of potential targets A > and, anyway, as long as the spammers are willing to pay for the B > connection and service, why would the ISP care if the email ever > gets delivered?   F But they typically do.  That's why far fewer SMTP servers allow relaysG anymore, and the defaults are now to NOT relay.  I.e. sendmail has been C that way for many years now.  And some of the older RFC allow relay 2 tricks are now disabled, such as the percent-hack.   > H > >                                                                 ThatK > > doesn't mean they can't identify and isolate that 0.1%, but the problem I > > is getting harder and more frequently occuring than ever before (i.e.  > > the new SpamThru trojan).  > F > Which comes back to why it has to be stopped at the point of origin.D > And we won't even get into the load on the whole infrastructure ofE > rejecting at the destination rather than stopping it at the source.   F But how do you reject it at the source?  You get a customer to sign anB AUP?  As I mentioned, we've already gone through that whack-a-mole* tactic of dealing with spammers years ago.  E > And why is that?  Because right now, under the current system there H > is no penalty for allowing it and a percieved penalty for stopping it.  B Exaclty - if a spammer spams through your mail server, and it getsF blocks (i.e. you socially disagree to accept their email traffic), allD your customers are punished.  Not good for your business.  You can't? stay in business when you treat all your customers like crooks.   C > I don't agree on two points.  I don't beleive that "The technical B > ability to zombie a box has got to be eliminated/reduced".  And,G > moreover, I don't beleive that "The technical ability to zombie a box  > can be eliminated/reduced".   G No, it has to be.  There is just too much damage via phishing, identify F theft, DDoS, and more to allow hundreds of thousands of Billy boxes onD the network.  The cost is too high, and currently Microsoft does notC have the pressure to to substantially fix it, despite the financial D loss caused by zombied machines.  Either they need to be hardened or@ more isolated.  Maybe Microsoft can't do it, but eventually some? government or business is going to take a huge loss (probably a ; lawsuit) due to damage caused by one or more Windows boxes.   B Eventually, someone is going to get an identity theft class-actionD lawsuit against a company, and will win because they can demonstrateF that the data on their Windows boxes was exploited because they eitherG didn't update their virus definitions enough, or missed a service pack.   4 > I just want the utility of email that I had in the > original Usenet days back.  B And frankly, I was around in the old Usenet days, too, but I neverG signed an AUP to prevent me from spamming or any such thing.  Email was = just a poor medium to spam, so it wasn't used that way.  Your B "original Usenet days" weren't socially or technically better thanD before, just not viewed as a target of abuse.  Usenet News was whereA the spamming problem started due to it's more "broadcast" nature. ? E-mail didn't become prevelent until the middle 1990's once the = Internet started to gain mindshare and more people had e-mail  (Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL).   F Your sysadmin choice of social "trusts" have been implmented by public@ and private RBL lists, spamassasin, Bayesian and other filteringE methods, but most can't just whitelist the rest of the world, either, C since many people NEED to be contacted by previously unknown places E (i.e. me).  And until you get that first spam (or subscribe to an RBL F or other service to look at it for you), you really can't tell if it's	 spam yet.   D But as the whack-a-moles at ISP's worked (socially terminating theirF connectivity for AUP violations), spammers just used different tricks,@ like third party SMTP relays, exploitation of WinGate firewalls,F exploitation of formmail.pl scripts (which I have a spammer attempting< to do that off the Hobbyist web form for the past few days -C topcopl2@aol.com), abuse of SOCKS4 proxies, and the growing tide of A bot-nets.  And forget just e-mail, IM spamming and web forum/blog E spamming is on the increase, too.  The problem is whatever the social F contracts are, the spammers will violate them and bypass them, as theyE have for years.  Spammers have been fined, sued, terminated, blocked, E and more (which is about as strong of a social solution statement you " can make), yet they still persist.  E There is no one solution.  There may not be a solution.  But you also C can't turn back the clock to the good ole days, either.  Profiteers C will try anything they can to exploit the system for a measly buck.    ------------------------------    Date: 22 Nov 2006 22:06:17 +01006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it , Message-ID: <4564c9d9$1@news.langstoeger.at>  w In article <ek16nv$6vi$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: 0 >Is there a technical way around this at my end?  L I solved it by having 2 locations with 2 different ISPs and 2 different DS10L (both running MX on OpenVMS Alpha) and no provider mailserver involved. YMMV  L This way I always control what I reject or accept (but have to manage 2x MX)   --   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: 22 Nov 2006 22:21:25 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it / Message-ID: <4sk0r4Fvq89tU1@mid.individual.net>   C In article <1164228129.949473.153320@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,  	davidc@montagar.com writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:E >> In article <1164209725.524594.74340@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,  >> 	davidc@montagar.com writes: H >> Not to mention all the legitimate emails that your server will rejectF >> because your potential customer is using an ISP that happens to get >> itself "blacklisted". > G > Which is the same set of "potential customers" - I'm just testing the  > RBL at a different place.   H But, if you just change RBL's you open yourself up to all the places theG other RBL had that the new one doesn't and your back where you started.    > = >> > There are technical solutions that can help quite a bit.  >>J >> As fast as you can come up with a trechnical solution the spammers willI >> come up with a way around it.  It has to be stopped at the source, and C >> there is no technical way of doing that.  There is a social way.  > F > SPF is one of the social ways (setting up a trust relationship), but( > spammers are getting around that, too.  G Not sure what SPF is, but I can assure you there is no way for spammers  to get around my method.   > G >> Both of these can be fixed with my social solution.  Right now there F >> is no incentive for any ISP to fix any of this while there are many >> incentives not to.  > A > Then the social solution (valid or not) is socially unaccepted.   C My social solution has not yet been tried, so we don't know that it  is socially unaccepted.    > K >> > The big social problem is that just enough people BUY from these scams H >> > to make them profitable enough (even if only the gambling sense - II >> > almost won all my money back, so just one more spam run and I should  >> > finally hit to big one!). >>J >> Actually, I saw an interview on the news with a commercial spammer.  heH >> said all it took was .1% return for him to make a profit.  Of course,K >> that leaves the other 99.9% (us) having to deal with it.  It will always H >> be profitable for the spammer, which is why it must be stopped at theK >> source.  Right now it costs them nothing to send out 100,000,000 emails. G >> The only solution is to remove that conduit so they can't send them.  > G > Unless you charge per e-mail, there's nothing removing the conduit or G > preventing its abuse.  But then you penalize good people just for the ! > sake of banning the bad people.   D Metered service has been looked at and it is unacceptable.  Plus, itE doesn't stop spam but is very likely to make the innocent pay for it.    > I > And yes, the response rates don't have to be big when you can case that  > wide of a net. > C > How do you stop it at the source?  Which is the spammer, himself?   G True.  You stop it by not giving the spammer a venue from which to send H his spam.  The sysadmins all agree (by contract) to not allow spam to beH sent from their systems. Penalty: ostracism.  The sysadmins of the localH mailsystems have AUP's that carry penalties (which depend on the type ofG organization, ie. ISP - include hefty fines in your customer contract,  F business - employee can be fired, school - expulsion or other academicG sanctions, etc.)  Thus, the spammer has no place where he is welcome on  the new email network.       > F >> Personally, I doubt that the useful base of legitimate mailhosts isG >> "orders of magnitude" larger.  The actual number of users has little G >> if any effect on the "trust relationships".  It is the admins of the I >> mailhosts themselves that establish the trust.  Much like what is done  >> Usenet News today.  > H > Well, given the size of the internet, number of attached companies, itF > much larger than it was back when I first go my internet connection.I > What what's to keep a spammer from signing on an ISP and violating that 1 > trust, causing other mailhosts to block them?     G Read what I said up above. The customers of the ISP all sign a contract > (I know I had to!)  You put serious penalties in the contract.  H >                                                Years ago panix, epoch,D > and many other ISP's played constant whack-a-mole against spammers( > creating accounts on their networks.    G But they have never instituted serious (and enforced) penalties against ! the people who violate their AUP.   I >                                       Many of the current RBL's already I > do this kind of "trust relationship" with known mail hosts, too.  We've  > already done that.  H RBL's are an attempt to fix the existing system (and protocol which mostF people admit is flawed).  The "trust relationship" needs to be betweenJ the mailhosts and not some third party who has nothing to do with actually transfering email.   > G >> But that would be much easier to do today as basicly anyone can talk I >> to anyone, from the technical standpoint.  We could have central hubs, G >> like what was done by seismo in the old days, but they would be more F >> of a conveninece than a necessity.  I am not saying everyone has toG >> have an explicit agreement with everyone else with whom they wish to L >> exchange emial.  I am saying that there needs to be an explicit agreementI >> drawn up that everyone who wishes to take part must sign (as a legally G >> binding document) in order to exchange mail with anyone in the Email E >> network.  Once you join the network, peering is can be left to the D >> individual admins.  Again, much like Usenet News, but with a much >> stricter and enforcable AUP.  > F > So, how do you get everyone that wants to send email to sign an AUP,  C You don't need everyone, only those who want to return email to the   useful form it had 20 years ago.  ! > and who do they sign it with?     G Whoever they deicde they want to use for their email so they don't have D to put up with all the spam.  This could be their school (we alreadyE have an AUP for use of any of the University's computing resources, I E to the best of my knowledge, SPAM coming out of here has never been a F problem, but I am sure the committee responsible for it would agree toJ adding an explicit no-spam clause.)  Or it could be a remote Email service? like Gmail or Yahoo but specifically set up to fill this need.    I >                                 After all, who would the enforcing body  > be?     H If the users sign a contract, that would be the courts.  :-)  Especially5 if the contract includes serious financial penalties.   7 >         We have ISP's and providers with AUP's today.   G Name one ISP that has an AUP that includes a serious fine for spamming!    > H > Usenet news isn't good example, since it's been rampant with spam evenF > before e-mail (remember the Brierbart Index and Cancelmoose?  Canter > and Seigel?).   H I didn't mean it as an example of a system that works perfectly, I meantE it as an example of a system that only works between "trusted hosts". I Try setting up a news server on your own.  It won't go very far until you I find at least one other News site willing to exchange with you.  There is G really nothing to stop these "trusted hosts" from having stricter AUP's G so that none of the above existed.  As a matter of fact, I believe that H was the intent of USENET-II (I haven't looked lately to see how this has worked out.)   > H >> If only it were so.  While much of the spam coming into my mailserverH >> comes from the proverbial "rogue" PC I get a considerable amount fromH >> ISP's who really have no problem with spammers.  The profit currently  >> outweighs the potential cost. > > > True, but those ISP's can be (and likely are) RBL'd against.  1 If they were, I wouldn't be getting the spam. :-)    > G >> >                       Even early in the battle with Walt Rines and J >> > Sanford Wallace, there was substantial blackholing of the entire AGISE >> > backbone (a very string social statement) against spam and their 1 >> > support to two of the worst known offenders.  >>O >> And who paid the price?  What effect did this have on AGIS legitimate users?  > H > Wasn't pretty.  But that was the "social solution" at the time.  SinceG > people didn't know where they would appear on AGIS networks, more and G > more places blackholed all AGIS networks.  AGIS eventually was forced H > to drop them, and they then promised to create the "SPAM-bone" so theyG > could run all the spam on it they wanted.  Getting peers proved to be  > problematic. > A >> Sorry, ISP's don't see it that way.  It's all about the money. @ >> As long as there is money in spam they will support the 0.1%. > I > Sometimes it's not the money, but the expense.  Chasing and terminating F > spammers takes time and effort.  Then they just get a new account orG > you end up with a new batch.  Eventually, it just cost less to ignore  > it.   G Unless you made them sign a contract in the first place that had severe  financial penalties.     > B >> There are some major ISP's that show up on RBL's and do nothing? >> to get back off them.  Why?  Because there are still lots of B >> email servers that don't use RBL's or can't because of the very@ >> reason you cite above.  That leaves lots of potential targetsB >> and, anyway, as long as the spammers are willing to pay for theC >> connection and service, why would the ISP care if the email ever  >> gets delivered? > H > But they typically do.  That's why far fewer SMTP servers allow relaysI > anymore, and the defaults are now to NOT relay.  I.e. sendmail has been E > that way for many years now.  And some of the older RFC allow relay 4 > tricks are now disabled, such as the percent-hack. >  >>I >> >                                                                 That L >> > doesn't mean they can't identify and isolate that 0.1%, but the problemJ >> > is getting harder and more frequently occuring than ever before (i.e. >> > the new SpamThru trojan). >>G >> Which comes back to why it has to be stopped at the point of origin. E >> And we won't even get into the load on the whole infrastructure of F >> rejecting at the destination rather than stopping it at the source. > H > But how do you reject it at the source?  You get a customer to sign anD > AUP?  As I mentioned, we've already gone through that whack-a-mole, > tactic of dealing with spammers years ago.  C But the AUP's they signed in most cases included no penalty beyond  E loosing your account.  They need to carry serious financial penalties ( as money is all anyone understand today.   > F >> And why is that?  Because right now, under the current system thereI >> is no penalty for allowing it and a percieved penalty for stopping it.  > D > Exaclty - if a spammer spams through your mail server, and it getsH > blocks (i.e. you socially disagree to accept their email traffic), allF > your customers are punished.  Not good for your business.  You can'tA > stay in business when you treat all your customers like crooks.   E Under my system, one would assume that the peers would not need to be E so draconian as to cut someone off on the first incident.  Of course, H it would likely depend on how the originating site handled the incident.H If they had in their AUP (agreed to as a contract so that the courts areG an arbiter) something along the lines of a $1000 fine for each incident B of SPAM sent by the customer and they enforced it, it wouldbe veryD un-profitable to end spam and there would be little if any chance ofF not getting caught.  Thus removing the greatest incentive to spamming.   > D >> I don't agree on two points.  I don't beleive that "The technicalC >> ability to zombie a box has got to be eliminated/reduced".  And, H >> moreover, I don't beleive that "The technical ability to zombie a box >> can be eliminated/reduced". > I > No, it has to be.  There is just too much damage via phishing, identify H > theft, DDoS, and more to allow hundreds of thousands of Billy boxes onF > the network.  The cost is too high, and currently Microsoft does notE > have the pressure to to substantially fix it, despite the financial F > loss caused by zombied machines.  Either they need to be hardened orB > more isolated.  Maybe Microsoft can't do it, but eventually someA > government or business is going to take a huge loss (probably a = > lawsuit) due to damage caused by one or more Windows boxes.   E Sorry, but I don't believe this will happen until MS runs it's course & and is supplanted by something better.   > D > Eventually, someone is going to get an identity theft class-actionF > lawsuit against a company, and will win because they can demonstrateH > that the data on their Windows boxes was exploited because they eitherI > didn't update their virus definitions enough, or missed a service pack.   H But you just gave the best defense.  The user "didn't update their virusH definitions enough, or missed a service pack" and thus, it was their own fault.   > 5 >> I just want the utility of email that I had in the  >> original Usenet days back.  > D > And frankly, I was around in the old Usenet days, too, but I never@ > signed an AUP to prevent me from spamming or any such thing.    J What's your point?  Back in those days there were machines on the DARPANETF that didn't even have passwords.  Society in general was different andD among the computer community in particular.  Draconian AUP's weren'tG needed.  Of course, people also used to leave their cars and even their 9 houses unlocked, too.  I can't hink of many who still do.   H >                                                              Email was? > just a poor medium to spam, so it wasn't used that way.  Your D > "original Usenet days" weren't socially or technically better than1 > before, just not viewed as a target of abuse.     E I disagree.  I think they were better socially.  The lack of Spam was F probably more due to the limited social coverage nature of the medium.  F >                                                Usenet News was whereC > the spamming problem started due to it's more "broadcast" nature. A > E-mail didn't become prevelent until the middle 1990's once the ? > Internet started to gain mindshare and more people had e-mail  > (Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL).   E There were lots of different Email systems in the past, USENET, FIDO, B Bitnet, etc.  And then there were the commercial services like youF mention, although Prodigy and AOL were latecommers.  there was TELENETI and TYMNET.  But what was lacking technically was the computing resources 9 and the conduit to handle the volume needed for spamming.      > H > Your sysadmin choice of social "trusts" have been implmented by publicB > and private RBL lists, spamassasin, Bayesian and other filteringG > methods, but most can't just whitelist the rest of the world, either, E > since many people NEED to be contacted by previously unknown places G > (i.e. me).  And until you get that first spam (or subscribe to an RBL H > or other service to look at it for you), you really can't tell if it's > spam yet.   C As I said, RBL's is not a trusted host relationship it is trying to D put the responsibility on a third party and after the fact.  That isE a system destined to fail.  It must be stopped at the point of origin D and before the fact.  It must be proactive and not reactive in orderG to work.  If it is reactive, there are just too many potential spammers 
 to deal with.    > F > But as the whack-a-moles at ISP's worked (socially terminating their$ > connectivity for AUP violations),   0 More agressive penalties are needed in the AUP!!  H >                                   spammers just used different tricks,  > like third party SMTP relays,   D You don't relay.  Oh, and did I mention that my proposal doesn't use SMTP.  :-)    B >                               exploitation of WinGate firewalls,  D Not sure what that means, but I'll bet it relies on SMTP to send the+ mail from the attacked machine.  See above.   & > exploitation of formmail.pl scripts   C Well, I won't even go into the potential security problems with any B PERL or PHP scripts, but I can tell you that I was able to win the= battle here to not allow the mail function on our web server.   I >                                      (which I have a spammer attempting > > to do that off the Hobbyist web form for the past few days -E > topcopl2@aol.com), abuse of SOCKS4 proxies, and the growing tide of 
 > bot-nets.     H I'll bet all of these depend on SMTP as the underlying protocol and they also don't care who connects.   B >           And forget just e-mail, IM spamming and web forum/blog% > spamming is on the increase, too.     H They were never truly useful anyway, so I really don't care. I am trying7 to salvage Email, let someone who cares fix the others.   G >                                    The problem is whatever the social H > contracts are, the spammers will violate them and bypass them, as theyG > have for years.  Spammers have been fined, sued, terminated, blocked, G > and more (which is about as strong of a social solution statement you $ > can make), yet they still persist.  F Sorry, I have never heard of any spammer who has been held financially; liable for his actions.  Please provide some real examples.    > G > There is no one solution.  There may not be a solution.  But you also E > can't turn back the clock to the good ole days, either.  Profiteers E > will try anything they can to exploit the system for a measly buck.   H Or we can just sit here and let the bastards win.  Sorry, I would ratherE try to convince people in a position to do something that the time is  ripe for fixing things.       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: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:27:14 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it 8 Message-ID: <c5469$4564dcc5$cef8887a$31396@TEKSAVVY.COM>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:N > I solved it by having 2 locations with 2 different ISPs and 2 different DS10N > (both running MX on OpenVMS Alpha) and no provider mailserver involved. YMMV    K Since good mail servers will attempt delivery for a number of times over a  L period of more than a day, having a second MX entry to point to a "vanilla" G server isn't really necessary. If you are down for a few minutes, then  L senders' SMTP servers will retry to send  a few times until you are back up.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:36:25 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>- Subject: Re: Is HP trying to kill VMS again ? ( Message-ID: <ek2jdb$uk5$1@pyrite.mv.net>   Dave Froble wrote: > Syltrem wrote:= >> We are getting pricing submissions for an Integrity server  >>F >> On an rx3600 2 CPU, 2 cores each, HP charges 4 Unlimited Users VMS # >> licenses + 4 VMScluster licenses   =    That box would appear to need the low-end FOE, with one cl B uster license required and added onto the order, if you need that.  C >> I end up paying the software twice the price of the cost of the  J >> hardware. And they say Integrity prices are going down... If you don't  >> run VMS on it that is.   H    Hardware prices are down, and OpenVMS I64 is priced lower than Alpha I licenses I've looked at.  IIRC, clustering and memory were the expensive  > giblets on the configuration I was most recently dealing with.  I >> On an Alpha system with 4 CPUs I used to pay only one license of each   >> (VMS, cluster).  F    I can't say I've seen that.  There's the Alpha base system license C for the particular Alpha box, the user license(s) or the unlimited  B license, and the SMP licenses for n-1 processors, and the cluster H license.  (There were certainly license packages around, NAS was one of H the early ones.  Most Alpha systems I've seen have had at least two and @ often three licenses, and that's before you get to SIPs or LPs.)  I >> Oracle, on the other hand, which was ever so greedy, charges me 4 CPU  G >> licenses on an Alpha but only 2 on the Integrity server. So I might   >> have 2 licenses for sale ;-(   D    How a vendor chooses to price depends on various factors, and it E extends well beyond the number of cores present.  Moving to MySQL or  F other database may be an option, but I'm guessing you believe it will 9 cost more to migrate than to acquire the Oracle licenses.   C >> I don't think I can buy an Integrity server in these conditions.  >>C >> Anyone has bought an Integrity lately, who can tell me how many  ! >> licenses of VMS were required?   -    FOE.  There's a tier for 1-4 core systems.   :    Add a Cluster license to FOE ala carte, if you need it.  G    Or MCOE, which includes FOE, EOE and a boatload of stuff, including   clustering.   ?    The progression is FOE, EOE, and MCOE.  Think of these as a  F combination of the base license, the unlimited user license, and with D three baskets of software licenses.  Details on the contents of the 5 three licensing licenses are at the OpenVMS web site.   I    There are (were?) three tiers for the FOE, EOE and MCOE licenses, for  H Integrity systems with up to two processor sockets, up to four sockets, H and unlimited sockets.  HP was using "sockets" because of the potential I existence of multiple cores within a processor, and potentially multiple  0 processors within a socket (see the mx2 module).  H    When I last looked, the US list price for the up-to-two-sockets tier & for the FOE license was under US$1000.  4 >> If something will kill VMS, this certainly will !( >> It now costs too much to license it !  F    Compared to many other boxes, OpenVMS is expensive.  I'm currently I dealing with another vendor with comparatively high prices, and there is  F a degree of difficulty in justifying a higher-cost solution against a A solution that requires a lower purchase cost and higher on-going  ! management and maintenance costs.   E > What I think doesn't really matter, but, I think there is either a  K > misunderstanding, or somebody is just plain wrong.  You're talking about  @ > one (1) system.  Not 4.  There should be one VMS license, and I > potentially some SMP licenses for additional CPUs/cores/whatever.  And  K > it's one system, not even needing a cluster license, unless you're going  E > to cluster it with other VMS systems, and then one cluster license.   F    I agree with David.  FOE, EOE or MCOE is it.  Clustering if needed.  I > As for cluster license(s), don't automatically assume that if you have  C > multiple VMS systems that you need to form a cluster.  There are  C > advantages, but, in many cases a simple network link is adequate.   H    Clustering is one of those cases where you may or may not be able to I justify it -- I've encountered various folks that were rolling their own  E clustering over time, and eventually likely spent significantly more  E time than purchasing clustering would have required.  There are also  E certainly any number of applications where a network and (if such is  G even needed) some form of replication or distributed communications or  $ NFS suffices for local requirements.  8 http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-2321ENW.pdf7 http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/5982-9832EN.pdf F http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12551_div/12551_div.HTML   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:00:43 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) - Subject: Re: Is HP trying to kill VMS again ? [ Message-ID: <rdeininger-2211062301010001@dialup-4.233.173.176.dial1.manchester1.level3.net>   F In article <ww59h.4454$T6.2665@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "David Turner,8 Island Computers US Corp" <dbturner@islandco.com> wrote:  % >But where are the $10-12K systems???   E On the same web page as the bigger systems...  rx1620.  rx2620.  Plus G unannounced systems in the pipeline (which aren't on the web page yet).   E I made an example rx3600 configuration because that's where the first G poster was  asking questions.  That's not the lowest-cost system in the G lineup.  But you'd know that, unless comp.os.vms is ONLY source of your 	 VMS news.   L >There are a lot of distributed VMS users out there such as Blockbuster who   >now have no viable upgrade path& >They have in excess of 3000 systems !: >That's a lot of cash for HP if they had a low end system.  4 Good thing HP has a low-end offering then, isn't it?  ! Are you representing Blockbuster?   G They have a couple of upgrade paths to VMS on Integrity that would save H them money compared to Alpha.  In particular, the office-friendly rx2620E with 1 CPU (2 cores) is probably a very nice fit.  I would expect any D customer migrating thousands of systems to take advantage of licenseE trade-in programs.  And hardware discounts are common in large deals.   D I don't understand your assertion that such customers have no viable
 upgrade path.    Have a happy Thanksgiving!   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Nov 2006 18:07:36 -0800& From: "Mister Q" <pquodling@gmail.com>( Subject: Re: OpenVMS Clustering QuestionC Message-ID: <1164247656.135261.306070@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    JF Mezei wrote: 
  blah blah > K > But at the interactive level, you ned to start your session from scratch.   ? Of course, if you want transaction level guarantee, look at RTR  (Reliable Transaction Router)    Mister Q   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:16:02 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> " Subject: OpenVMS Integrity WebinarT Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B868401DCDE22@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   All,  < The following may be of interest to developers on this list:H http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/ne/ne_EventDetail_IDX/1,1394,1322,00.htmlA Don't hold back! Learn what HP is doing now to help you move your @ applications to OpenVMS on HP Integrity servers and to get those2 applications into your customers' data centers.=20  $ date:   Wednesday, November 29, 2006, Time:  10:00 AM Pacific / 1:00 PM Eastern=20 location:         audiocast   C Recommended audience:  If you develop and sell applications for the D OpenVMS market, or if you have applications that you want to sell onH OpenVMS, join us for this audiocast focusing on OpenVMS for HP Integrity
 servers.  =20    Agenda: 1 1. The state of OpenVMS and the OpenVMS Market=20 = 2. Status of solution availability on HP Integrity servers=20 H 3. Resources to move your OpenVMS application to HP Integrity servers=20H 4. Resources to move non-OpenVMS applications to OpenVMS on HP Integrity
 servers=20 5. Selling resources   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:44:57 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: OpenVMS Integrity Webinar8 Message-ID: <c3bec$4565192d$cef8887a$14503@TEKSAVVY.COM>   Main, Kerry wrote: > All, > > > The following may be of interest to developers on this list:  K When you guys make announcements of "webinars", please state the technical  J requirements and technology used in the announcement. When you get to the F signup pages, there is no such information. I have wasted enough time D siging up to those thing only to find out that it just doesn't work B (incompatible, or inadequante bandwidth) and wasted a LOT of time.  E Last time HP made some webinar announcement, there was no way to get  < details of the presentation unless one signed up. BAD BOY !.    C > Don't hold back! Learn what HP is doing now to help you move your B > applications to OpenVMS on HP Integrity servers and to get those2 > applications into your customers' data centers.   I Will we ever hear about that $10 billion porting fund being used to port   VMS apps to that IA64 thing ?   F If they can't even get PL1 ported to IA64, I guess they really aren't N trying hard. Compilers are core building blocks for an architecture ecosystem.   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Nov 2006 13:16:39 -0800) From: "DaveG" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> 6 Subject: Re: Oracle 9i and VMS multihome configurationC Message-ID: <1164230199.528595.206880@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>   C  We recently enabled and started failSAFE IP ( 2 NICs ) on an Alpha G  v7.3-2 (patches up to date) system.  This system runs Oracle 9i and it E  seems that Oracle only sees one of the 2 active IP addresses on this D  system, as it did before we enabled the second NIC and failSAFE IP.F  Seems like failSAFE IP is not the issue here, but I include it in theB  description for completeness.  failSAFE IP seems to be working asG  advertised (nice feature btw) and our DNS servers have been updated to G  include the second IP address.  The Oracle listener has been restarted /  and Oracle is not aware of the second address.   D  Other people here have a call in to Oracle support, but while we'reF  waiting for a reply, I thought I'd ask here and discover if anyone isF  running a similar configuration.  My guess is that Oracle needs to beE  configured in some way to see both NICs/ IP addresses, but not being 6  Oracle savy, I haven't a clue how that might be done.     Dave...   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:05:00 -0800 , From: "Malcolm Dunnett" <dunnett@mala.bc.ca>6 Subject: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory Message-ID: <4564baed$1@flight>   % I have an rx2600 running VMS I64 8.3.   I It was running everything fine. Yesterday I decided to get modernized and / so I replaced DECNET Phase IV with DECNET Plus.   C I did a product remove on the phase IV and installed and configured  Decnet Plus.  A The Decnet Plus appears to be working, but since installing it my H TCPIP (TCP/IP Services V5.6) startup fails with an INSFMEM error, right 	 after the % "starting name service" is displayed.   9 I've tried mucking with PAGEDYN and CTLPAGES settings but  neither of those helped.  ? I have a very similar RX2600 which I also upgraded and it's not  showing this symptom.   3 Any ideas what's happening or where I should look?     ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:01:22 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>: Subject: Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory( Message-ID: <ek2ks3$v4g$1@pyrite.mv.net>   Malcolm Dunnett wrote:' > I have an rx2600 running VMS I64 8.3.  > K > It was running everything fine. Yesterday I decided to get modernized and 1 > so I replaced DECNET Phase IV with DECNET Plus.  > E > I did a product remove on the phase IV and installed and configured  > Decnet Plus. > C > The Decnet Plus appears to be working, but since installing it my J > TCPIP (TCP/IP Services V5.6) startup fails with an INSFMEM error, right  > after the ' > "starting name service" is displayed.       Some potential sources...  . http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/wiz_2050.htmlY http://h18000.www1.hp.com/support/asktima/operating_systems/00945720-52DC0CE0-1C0181.html   G Oracle reports that GLX_SHM_REG has been seen to cause this in OpenVMS  4 Galaxy configurations, but that's not the case here.  I Also check the minimum recommended settings for IP, if such things exist.   ? And for no other reason than the included documentation of the  = sys$prozac system service call, take a look at the following:   $    http://www.kgb.com/dcl/199409.txt   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:21:50 GMT 6 From: "Malcolm Dunnett" <info@cruising-for-a-cause.ca>: Subject: Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory% Message-ID: <yl99h.118$p9.1@edtnps82>   F "Stephen Hoffman" <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org> wrote in message " news:ek2ks3$v4g$1@pyrite.mv.net... >>D >> The Decnet Plus appears to be working, but since installing it myK >> TCPIP (TCP/IP Services V5.6) startup fails with an INSFMEM error, right   >> after the( >> "starting name service" is displayed. >  >   Some potential sources...  > 0 > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/wiz_2050.html[ > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/support/asktima/operating_systems/00945720-52DC0CE0-1C0181.html  >   K Thanks for the suggestions. I checked them out but they don't seem to help.   H I cleaned the dreck out of MODPARAMS.DAT and ran autogen, no difference.  K I tried boosting NPAGEDYN,PAGEDYN, CTLPAGES and PGFLQUOTA but none of them   helped. L I boosted them to outrageous values ( eg 200MB for each of  the pools ) and  it didn't make any difference.  K I put on a "SET VERIFY" in the system startup and I determined I'm getting   the error at two differentL places in the system startup. One is in TCP/IP startup when it trys to load   the proxies. The failing command is:    sysconfig -c proxy  F Then again when DECWindows starts it gets the same error when it does:  = sysman io connect ina0/noadapter/driver='decw$common_decoder'   K I checked the other system and found it's also getting the same error, but   in a different place, it gets / the error when it goes to load the PWIP driver.   H If I disable DECNET Plus ( via the NET$IGNORE_DECNET logical ) then the  error goes away.  I Other than scrapping DECNET Plus and going back to Phase IV I'm not sure   what to try next.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:59:51 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: Testing for mobile device8 Message-ID: <14ae5$4564d65d$cef8887a$30612@TEKSAVVY.COM>   David Gray wrote: G > Yes the users are connecting via Telnet and will be in a captive menu D > environment.  Basically the users connecting via the handheld willF > access a cutdown menu system which is designed for a small screen.    K If the screen size is what counts, then SET TERM/INQUIRE *should* give you  H the device characteristics for page width and page size. But not all VT  emulators handle this properly.   K after SET TERM/INQUIRE, do a SHOW TERM and it will show you what it thinks  L your terminal size is. If one of the two devices does not respond properly, H you can cue into this and assume the user is using such a device when a  similar response come back.   : The lexical F$GETDVI("TT:","DEVBUFSIZ") gets you the witdh  J The lexical F$GETDVI("TT:","TT_PAGE") gets you the page length (number of  lines)   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Nov 2006 12:01:24 -0800- From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> 6 Subject: Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium salesC Message-ID: <1164225684.795095.237200@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    FredK wrote:: > "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> wrote in message> > news:1164217195.400622.40900@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > FredK wrote:: > >> "Alan Greig" <greigaln@netscape.net> wrote in message >  > > J > > With all due respect, a large portion of Sun's loss is from changes inF > > accounting for stock compensation and restructuring charges due to > > acquisitions.  > >  > N > What was the loss without "other stuff"?  Why did they still lose money when% > MS threw what, a billion $ at them?  >   H <http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/investor/earnings_releases/pr/2007-q1.html>   <Quote> C Sun Microsystems Reports Results for First Quarter Fiscal Year 2007   E Revenue Growth and Strong Gross Margin Affirm Sun's Business Strategy  and Focus on Innovation   ? SANTA CLARA, Calif. - October 26, 2006 - Sun Microsystems, Inc. C (NASDAQ: SUNW) reported results today for its fiscal first quarter,  which ended October 1, 2006.  E Revenues for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 were $3.189 billion, an D increase of 17 percent as compared with $2.726 billion for the firstE quarter of fiscal 2006. Year over year revenue increase resulted from G both acquisitions and increasing acceptance of the Solaris 10 Operating D System, as well as growth in the services business. Computer Systems@ Products revenues increased 15 percent year over year, the third7 consecutive quarter of year over year revenue increase.   E Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 on a GAAP basis was $56 G million or a net loss of ($0.02) per share, as compared with a net loss @ of $123 million, or net loss of ($0.04) per share, for the first quarter of fiscal 2006.   @ GAAP net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 included: $21F million of restructuring and related impairment of asset charges and aF $7 million benefit for related tax effects, $58 million of stock-basedE compensation charges and $79 million of intangible asset amortization G relating to recent acquisitions. The net impact of these four items was   approximately ($0.04) per share.  F Cash generated from operations for the first quarter was $157 million,A and cash and marketable debt securities balance at the end of the  quarter was $4.671 billion.  </Quote>  D So, it looks like $165 million of "other stuff" that when backed out  leaves a profit of $109 million.    J > > Sun also reports a decline in Enterprise level system sales, offset byE > > increases in Opteron and "entry level" Sparc sales. AMD-64 is not E > > intended to "save" Sparc, but to supplant it. Can anyone still be  > > surprised by that? > >  > * > Just like Itanium will supplant PA-RISC. >   C And as EM64T and AMD64 become more capable and eat further into the @ high end market, and the cost of keeping Itanium ahead (or even)@ becomes too great for its diminishing market share, and as otherE "lesser" OS's gain features and capabilities previously only found in < high end OS's, ... or do those projections not seem obvious?  J > > I'm not a Sun fan, but they are moving in the right direction. WhetherK > > their recent acquisitions and their steady transition from Sparc to AMD F > > servers will be enough to pull them back up or not, only time willH > > tell. They've looked like merger & acquisition fodder for some time,4 > > but I haven't a clue as to who might be looking. > >  > M > They aren't moving in the right direction until they show a few quarters in M > the black.  I'm not sure anyone wants to take over Sun...  maybe Fujitsu if M > they look like they are going under.  There isn't a lot of return in buying  > them.   F Time will tell. For now, Sun is doing the buying. We'll see where thatF leads and what will happen as Mr. McNealy, um, goes into his change in life's priorities stage.   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Nov 2006 14:22:16 -0800- From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> 6 Subject: Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium salesC Message-ID: <1164234136.489934.104620@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>    Dave Froble wrote: > FredK wrote:N > > I love the spin.  HP's transition from PA-RISC to Itanium is gloom & doom,F > > and Sparc continuing to drown in red ink is cause for celibration? > > O > > Income -$797 million, net profit margin -5.89%.  5 year sales growth -6.5%. O > > They've lost about $5 billion over the last 5 years and lept back up from a O > > $107 million dollar loss last year to $864 million.  If they increase sales K > > any faster they might have to file chapter 11.  AMD-64 hasn't saved the  > > sinking Sparc yet. > 4 > What does this have to do with the itanic and VMS? > J > Whatever Sun does, good or bad, has no bearing on what VMS does, good or> > bad.  I personally don't give a damn about Sun.  Irrelevant! >   E It's irrelevant if you fail to make the connection between competiton C in the Enterprise server marketplace (like Sun), the health of that  market, and OpenVMS.  F And, ignore the fact that EM64T and AMD64 servers are eating into that( market, and Sun is addressing that fact.  D And, if you ignore the fact that OpenVMS is focused primarily on theA Enterprise, ignoring the EM64T and AMD64 growing capabilities and ? cost-performance advantage, while Sun is embracing that change.    Then it's irrelevant.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:29:54 GMT + From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= 6 Subject: Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales2 Message-ID: <S359h.24061$E02.9850@newsb.telia.net>   JF Mezei skrev:   J > IA64 is out of the workstation market (yes, I know, you can configure a I > server as a workstation, but from a marketing point of view, it is not   > in that market).    ( Who cares (from a VMS point of view) ???# VMS is not a workstation-OS anyway.   	 Jan-Erik.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:21:12 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 6 Subject: Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales8 Message-ID: <17cdd$4564db5c$cef8887a$31396@TEKSAVVY.COM>   FredK wrote:* > Just like Itanium will supplant PA-RISC.    L When Curly pitched the euthanasia of ALpha, the promise was that IA64 would J expand the market for VMS and produce a wider rane of lower cost industry , standard commodity servers and workstations.  H IA64 is out of the workstation market (yes, I know, you can configure a J server as a workstation, but from a marketing point of view, it is not in 
 that market).   J And even HP sponsored studies confirm that the switch to IA64 will result L in a REDUCTION of the customer base not an increase.  So this is not a wise  business move for HP.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:32:44 -0500 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> ; Subject: Re: Using SYS$INPUT for input into an FTP command. : Message-ID: <ROydnVZQxeRwLvnYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com>   FredK wrote:  A > "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message  6 > news:QM2dnT3jnOPv__7YnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com... >  >>Ade wrote: >> >> >>>Hi, >>>  >>>OpenVMS 7.1-1H1 >>>UCX V4.1 ECO 2  >>> , >>>Unfortunately, we can't change the above. >>> - >>>Using this command in a command procedure:  >>>    $FTP/INPUT=myfile.ftp >>>  >>>where myfile.ftp contains >>>    connect node  >>>    username  >>>    password  >>>    ascii' >>>    put myfile.txt someotherfile.txt  >>>    quit  >>> L >>>works fine. I would like to combine the two files and direct FTP to take I >>>the input from the command file, ie DEFINE/USER SYS$INPUT SYS$COMMAND  H >>>before the FTP/INPUT=SYS$INPUT command and the rest of myfile.ftp to > >>>follow in the procedure. This method however, doesn't work. >>> M >>>I've also tried this on an Itanium running OpenVMS 8.2, TCP/IP 5.5 and it   >>>still doesn't work  >>> M >>>The reason I'm asking is we have to change a LOT of procedures due to the  L >>>removal of decnet from a customers network meaning everything changes to K >>>an IP based solution and I was hoping to minimize the number of changes  + >>>and/or extra files required for the job.  >>>  >>>Any suggestions?  >>>  >>>Ade >> >>You could try:H >>$ FTP /INPUT=SYS$INPUT /USERNAME=MYNAME /PASSWORD=MYPASS REMOTE_SYSTEM >>ASCII  >>PUT MYFILE.TXT SOMEFILE.TXT  >>BYE  >>$ EXIT >>* >>Something along those lines should work. >  > O > When I started doing FTP transfers a lot, that is exactly what I did.  Later  M > on, I got more sophisticated and the command file creates a temporary file  N > with the FTP commands on-the-fly.  Because I end up with a lot of transfers N > that go through a non-VMS FTP server - my command file converts the file to N > a backup saveset (if it isn't one already) so that on the other end I never J > lose my file attributes.  On the other side I have a GET procedure that J > pulls a file from an FTP site, fixes saveset attributes and unpacks the  > file.  > H That's a good way for VMS<-->VMS transfers.  I was thinking more of the  generic < case where I might not have a clue what's on the other end.  Unfortunately mostF of the world does not use VMS.  I did quite a bit of that for my last G employer; send a text file to a vendor.  The only "attribute" is "text  I file" (ASCII) and the receiving system knows the local custom for how to  F store a text file; a Macintosh stores it with a <cr> terminator, Unix @ with a <lf> terminator, DOS and Windows with <cr><lf> and so on.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:16:01 GMT # From: "FredK" <fred@nospam.dec.com> ; Subject: Re: Using SYS$INPUT for input into an FTP command. 1 Message-ID: <l639h.2802$Eo2.629@news.cpqcorp.net>   ? "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message  4 news:ROydnVZQxeRwLvnYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > FredK wrote: > B >> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message 7 >> news:QM2dnT3jnOPv__7YnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com...  >>
 >>>Ade wrote:  >>>  >>>  >>>>Hi,  >>>> >>>>OpenVMS 7.1-1H1  >>>>UCX V4.1 ECO 2 >>>>- >>>>Unfortunately, we can't change the above.  >>>>. >>>>Using this command in a command procedure: >>>>    $FTP/INPUT=myfile.ftp  >>>> >>>>where myfile.ftp contains  >>>>    connect node >>>>    username >>>>    password
 >>>>    ascii ( >>>>    put myfile.txt someotherfile.txt >>>>    quit >>>>M >>>>works fine. I would like to combine the two files and direct FTP to take  J >>>>the input from the command file, ie DEFINE/USER SYS$INPUT SYS$COMMAND I >>>>before the FTP/INPUT=SYS$INPUT command and the rest of myfile.ftp to  ? >>>>follow in the procedure. This method however, doesn't work.  >>>>K >>>>I've also tried this on an Itanium running OpenVMS 8.2, TCP/IP 5.5 and   >>>>it still doesn't work  >>>>J >>>>The reason I'm asking is we have to change a LOT of procedures due to F >>>>the removal of decnet from a customers network meaning everything L >>>>changes to an IP based solution and I was hoping to minimize the number 7 >>>>of changes and/or extra files required for the job.  >>>> >>>>Any suggestions? >>>> >>>>Ade  >>>  >>>You could try: I >>>$ FTP /INPUT=SYS$INPUT /USERNAME=MYNAME /PASSWORD=MYPASS REMOTE_SYSTEM  >>>ASCII >>>PUT MYFILE.TXT SOMEFILE.TXT >>>BYE	 >>>$ EXIT  >>> + >>>Something along those lines should work.  >> >>I >> When I started doing FTP transfers a lot, that is exactly what I did.  E >> Later on, I got more sophisticated and the command file creates a  M >> temporary file with the FTP commands on-the-fly.  Because I end up with a  K >> lot of transfers that go through a non-VMS FTP server - my command file  K >> converts the file to a backup saveset (if it isn't one already) so that  J >> on the other end I never lose my file attributes.  On the other side I J >> have a GET procedure that pulls a file from an FTP site, fixes saveset # >> attributes and unpacks the file.  >>J > That's a good way for VMS<-->VMS transfers.  I was thinking more of the 	 > generic L > case where I might not have a clue what's on the other end. Unfortunately  > mostH > of the world does not use VMS.  I did quite a bit of that for my last I > employer; send a text file to a vendor.  The only "attribute" is "text  K > file" (ASCII) and the receiving system knows the local custom for how to  M > store a text file; a Macintosh stores it with a <cr> terminator, Unix with  = > a <lf> terminator, DOS and Windows with <cr><lf> and so on.  >   M I often have to go indirectly (push to a UNIX FTP site and then pull from it  J on the other end) - so backup made sense when I wrote my procedure (hey - L backup can even do compression now).  I could have just as easily used TAR, M GZIP or ZIP instead of backup.  The backup saveset sent in binary mode comes  L through no matter what is in the middle - except the file attributes need a 7 tweak.  A tarball or zip file would not even need that.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:40:00 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: Western Dayligh Time. Starts in 12 days! 8 Message-ID: <6a604$4564d1b4$cef8887a$18064@TEKSAVVY.COM>  H >>> On Dec 3rd, turn off all Daylight Savings time support and change=20+ >>> your system time to the "new" timezone.   & >> My thought is to totally ignore it.  J On the Nullarbor, near the South Australia Border, there are two adjoinin= g=20I towns that decided long ago that the WA time zone wasn't good for them=20 J since they are so far east of Perth and they have their own unofficial ti= me=20 J zone. Causes problems for the guy at the weather office who needs to send= =20 J his reports with Perth time stamps, but otherwise these towns seem to liv= e=20 happily.  J At the Qu=E9bec Labrador border on the north shore, the QC town of Blanc =  J Sablon and the NL town of Forteau just across the border are on different= =20 H time zones. One summer, when NL decided to have a Daylight of 2 hours=20J instead of 1, the two towns were 2.5 hours apart even though only a few k= m=20 separate them !   J   (Newfoundland is 0.5 hour ahead of Atlantic time which is 1 hour ahead = of=20 
 Quebec time).    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:57:29 -0500  From: BobH <bobh@x.y> 5 Subject: Re: Western Dayligh Time. Starts in 12 days! ( Message-ID: <Xl69h.40$pH.0@newsfe05.lga>   JF Mezei wrote:   I > At the Qubec Labrador border on the north shore, the QC town of Blanc  B > Sablon and the NL town of Forteau just across the border are on J > different time zones. One summer, when NL decided to have a Daylight of G > 2 hours instead of 1, the two towns were 2.5 hours apart even though   > only a few km separate them !  > J >  (Newfoundland is 0.5 hour ahead of Atlantic time which is 1 hour ahead  > of Quebec time).  D Yup, and that can make reading the schedule for the ferry that runs G between St. Barbe on the island of Newfoundland to Blanc Sablon on the  C mainland, located at the border between Quebec and Labrador just a  E little "interesting".  Say you are in Red Bay or Cartwright, and you  H need to catch the ferry to get back to the island - when do you need to L leave?  It can be non-trivial for the tourists.  Been there and done that...  H BTW JF - are they ever going to finish the road through from Cartwright 
 to Goose Bay?    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.644 ************************