1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 26 Nov 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 650       Contents:D Re: (slightly OT) the commercial invoice and international hobbyistsD Re: (slightly OT) the commercial invoice and international hobbyists Baltimore Openings Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3)  Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3) , Re: increase in spam and what to do about it Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: optimal drives for HSG80+ renderext 0.9 for OpenVMS (X11 definitions) 1 Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory 1 Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:43:17 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> M Subject: Re: (slightly OT) the commercial invoice and international hobbyists 9 Message-ID: <VpKdnXz664tvN_XYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@libcom.com>    Tom Garcia wrote: 
 > Morning, > N > I'm likely not the only hobbyist outside the United States who occasionally N > gets items shipped across the pond.  Now our socialist utopia imposes 17.5% J > tax on the declared value of goods _and_ shipping costs, payable by all M > individuals and any business which is not "VAT registered" (ie the smaller   > ones). > H > The last two places I obtained VMS-related bits from were helpful and N > efficient, with the exception that they both did not fill in the commercial I > invoice correctly: the shipping/freight line of the commercial invoice  L > should contain the amount I was charged for shipping, not "0.00", and the K > amount should certainly not be included in another line.  Otherwise, the  O > clearance guys make an overestimate of the amount it would cost to ship, and  O > then calculate tax based on that figure (in the latter case, then, one would  O > be charged tax twice on shipping).  Trying to claw back this extra amount is  ) > an exercise in nonproductive masochism.  > O > I guess the best advice is to ensure that whoever you are obtaining hardware  K > from, individual or organisation, is aware of how to fill in the invoice   > correctly before you order.  >   G Perhaps being pro-active may help.  Some vendors may be receptive to a  H 'sample' invoice which you could supply.  They would be free to set the H actual amounts.  I'm assuming a shipping fee of $5 would be much better D than $0.  You need to be rather specific on some things because the & vendor many times doesn't have a clue.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:00:10 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> M Subject: Re: (slightly OT) the commercial invoice and international hobbyists 8 Message-ID: <17a7f$4568e6fd$cef8887a$25005@TEKSAVVY.COM>   Jan-Erik S=F6derholm wrote:   H > Which is illegal and no serious vendor would agree to put anything but; > the real amount(s) on any invoice or customs declaration.   J That is not what he meant. I've had that experience too.  For instance,=20I vendors who ship UPS ground to Canada from the USA have no idea of the=20 I extra random bills from the customs broker the poor buyer will receive=20 J weeks after delivery (for the privilege of collecting a few dollars worth= =20 J of tax). So these vendors continue to use UPS until they are told about t= he=20  issue.  J However, US outfits with canadian tax accounts can bypass those customs=20J brokerage houses completely if they include the canadian federal tax in t= he=20 J amount charged to the customer and clearly indicate so on the commercial =  J invoice. The vendor then sends the collected tax to the canadian gov at=20J regular intervals and makes the shipping of goods to canada faster and mu= ch=20  more convenient for the buyer.  J Another one I found recently, FedEx now charges a $7.00  "pre pay" fee.=20J (they pay the taxes to the govt and then collect from the customer at a=20J later date).  If the vendor checks a box that he is willing to pay the ta= x,=20 I or includes the buyer's FedEx account number to which the tax is to be=20 G charged, then the $7.00 fee isn't charged because FedEx can bill the=20  customer right away.      J And vendors in one country don't really know how things are handled at th= e=20J destination country until/unless a customer tells them what is needed for= =20  proper customs processing.  J And UPS in the USA is unaware of how UPS works in Canada with regards to =  J outsourcing customs processing to some highway robbery firm (except for=20E express/air which now includes brokerage fees in the shipping costs).       J This isn't  a suggestion for cheating, just a suggestion to the vendor of= =20 J how to break the invoice up so that customs agents levy the right tax on =  " the right portions of the invoice.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:50:10 -0500 $ From: Hal Kuff <halkuff@verizon.net> Subject: Baltimore Openings @ Message-ID: <halkuff-885209.17500925112006@east.Usenet-News.net>   Hi,   D  Looking for a couple of 3GL programmers to work in DBL.. these are  permanent positions..   F Also looking for a short term contractor to bootstrap an OpenVMS WASD  Java environment.    Hal Kuff kuff@tessco.com    ------------------------------   Date: 25 Nov 06 17:39:43 EST) From: cook@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) & Subject: Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3)! Message-ID: <Qge4XJ5EYaq$@wvnvms>   h In article <215cd$4568681c$cef8887a$21906@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:? > Patrick MOREAU, DTI Athis ex CENA, Tel: 01.69.57.68.40 wrote: J >> The server keeps also in memory non on-screen data, especially pixmaps. > J > I know that the server caches a window's content when it is occluded by M > another window (so that when the occluded window is brought to foreforent,  D > the application doesn't need to redraw the whole window contents).  E It is possible for servers to keep occluded areas, but the individual D application may have to specifically request it, and the server mustE support and have the necessary features (e.g. backing store) enabled. I In all the cases I have dealt with recently on my VMS server with default E feature settings, VMS Mosaic gets expose events and must redraw areas  occluded by other applications.   K > But why would the X server keep in memory any content that is not in the  N > current window ? As I recall, when one scrolls or resizes the screen, isn't J > it the application's responsability to fill in the newly exposed areas ? > N > Or does the application download all pixmaps to the X server and then tells B > the server to display pixmap XYZ at location ABC on the window ?  , Pixmaps are created and exist on the server.     George Cook  WVNET    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:54:47 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3)7 Message-ID: <ecf06$4568d7ab$cef8887a$8415@TEKSAVVY.COM>    George Cook wrote:  . > Pixmaps are created and exist on the server.    J OK' i can see some reasons for this, for instance, animated GIFs would be L sent once down the network to an X-terminal, and then the application would I simply need to tell the X server which pixmap to place in that square at  
 what time.  K But should an application such as a web browser download a billion pixmaps  I for a very very long and complex plage before the user has even begun to  F scroll down ? This downloading actually delays the time when the page I becomes functional. PDF knew about this and set up their PDF plug ins to  H fetch data from the remote system on an as-needed basis (eg: you scroll I down a few pages). This way, the first few pages become fully functional  ) before the whole document has downloaded.   J What is a shame here is that when a browser runs on the same box as the X G server, the pixmaps are fully duplicated instead of using some sort of   shared memory.   ------------------------------   Date: 26 Nov 2006 02:40:56 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it 0 Message-ID: <4ssd5nF110jjhU1@mid.individual.net>  B In article <1164427612.373176.124490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, 	davidc@montagar.com writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > G > And I guess I'm still not sure exactly how your method is to actually ? > work, and how all these agreements are executed and enforced.   > The agreements are executed by tou asking me to exchange email; with you and my agreeing to do so.  Enforced?  It can be as > formal or as informal as the two parties want it to be.  If it? were me and you I would likely opt for a gentlemans agreement.  > Same for other places like SLAC or Island.  For people I don't= know well or have any reason to trust, I would likely opt for = a formal signed contract.  That can be enforced in the courts : just like any other contract.  Of course, depending on the> agreement, the other side has the choice of either deciding to= go ahead or not.  How is USENET News done today?  I had feeds < from people like UPenn and an ISP in Belgium.  No paperwork,= just a gentleman's agreement. I also had a feed from Cidera.  = Required a signed legally binding contract.  There is nothing ? really new or inovative in what I am proposing, only in the way  I see it being implemented.    > D >> > Then the social solution (valid or not) is socially unaccepted. >>F >> My social solution has not yet been tried, so we don't know that it >> is socially unaccepted. > B > I would at least venture that it hasn't been accepted yet, then?  F Well, being as it's still just an idea and hasn't been proposed yet...   > J >> > Unless you charge per e-mail, there's nothing removing the conduit orJ >> > preventing its abuse.  But then you penalize good people just for the$ >> > sake of banning the bad people. >>G >> Metered service has been looked at and it is unacceptable.  Plus, it H >> doesn't stop spam but is very likely to make the innocent pay for it. > @ > Agreed, even AOL has had lots of complains about it's plans toG > implement something like this.  How do you punish the abusers without I > inflicting punishment or worse on the vast majority of people who don't  > abuse it?   G By making the users (at least the one's you don't trust) sign a legally G binding contract that has the ability to impose real penalties on those  who violate it.    > F >> > How do you stop it at the source?  Which is the spammer, himself? >>J >> True.  You stop it by not giving the spammer a venue from which to sendK >> his spam.  The sysadmins all agree (by contract) to not allow spam to be K >> sent from their systems. Penalty: ostracism.  The sysadmins of the local K >> mailsystems have AUP's that carry penalties (which depend on the type of I >> organization, ie. ISP - include hefty fines in your customer contract, I >> business - employee can be fired, school - expulsion or other academic J >> sanctions, etc.)  Thus, the spammer has no place where he is welcome on >> the new email network.  > I > Back in the mid '90's, such things were done.  Erols and other networks I > had fines and such for spammers.  It didn't work.  This again referrers E > to the "whack-a-mole" game of spammer termination.  Also, often the I > spammers would sign up with accounts using credit cards of the clients,   > or even stolen credit cards.    , Ummm....   That's a crime, probably federal.  F >                               So you end up not billing or punishingF > the spammer, anyway.  You kill one spammer account, and they have 10$ > more waiting to abuse when needed.  D If you make the users identify themselves and sign a legally bindingC contract you know who they are and they can't have 10 more accounts  waiting.   > I > Of course, now much spam is from zombied Windows boxes.  The spam can't H > be traced back past the zombied PC.  So, do you fine and terminate theG > account of the person with the infected PC?  That's going to sit well G > with customers.  What about the Wingate proxy exploitation of several H > years ago?  The proxy would allow SOCK4-like remote access, making theD > Wingate proxy appear to be the source, but no way to determine whoI > initiated the connection.  And the wide variety of formmail.pl web form I > abuse that occured (and actually, I STILL had several dozen attempts by A > some spammer to test my form mail web script on the Hobby Site: I > dinotto2@aol.com and topcopl2@aol.com are their test accounts - may the E > harvesters get them)?  And there are still open SOCK4 proxies, open B > SMTP relays, and any number of other methods people are spamming8 > without using mail servers they are authorized to use.  C And, because my proposal doesn't use SMTP at all, none of the above  pose a threat.     > G > They are already not using email networks where they are not welcome, ! > so why does your solution work?   C How are they "not using email networks where they are not welcome"? A Right now, except for private networks, there is only one network A and everyone who is exchanging email is using it.  Any Email host @ (and many non-legitimate ones like zombied PC's) can contact anyC other and 90% of them will accept the connection and the email from 
 any other.   > I > Also, how do you require uniform AUP's across ISP of various countries?   G It is all based on agreements between individuals.  Regardless of where E one is I can require whatever I want or refuse to let them play in my  sandbox.   > J >> Read what I said up above. The customers of the ISP all sign a contractA >> (I know I had to!)  You put serious penalties in the contract.  > B > Yes, but they really have no teeth, the spammers are often using > fraudulent information,   G If I don't know/trust the individual, I require them to prove who they  H are.  How is that any different than when someone walks into a store andE plops a credit card down?  Fraud is illegal.  As near as I know, that / applies in pretty much every civilized country.   A >                         or on ISP which don't have strong AUP,    F I don't let them join the network until they agree to institute an AUP* that meets the requirements of my network.  G >                                                                or the ; > spammers are using network which they are not authorized.   H Won't be able to use mine.  I will know who is allowed to access my mail( server and no one else will be able to.    > F > You are assuming the spammers are Law Abiding Honest Citizens.  That5 > may be true of Usenet back in the day, not anymore.   B In order to join the nework, they will have to positively identify> themselves.  If they choose to violate the law after they haveB positively identified themselves, well, that's what the courts are	 for.  :-)    > K >> >                                                Years ago panix, epoch, G >> > and many other ISP's played constant whack-a-mole against spammers ) >> > creating accounts on their networks.  >>J >> But they have never instituted serious (and enforced) penalties against$ >> the people who violate their AUP. > G > Sure they did.  It just didn't stop the spammers.  Because they don't  > care.   E You can't posibly tell me that a spammer is going to continue to spam D if he has been positively identified and faces penalties of hundreds3 of thousands (or more) dollars for his violation.     E The reason they don't care now is because in most cases they can't be I identified.  This anonymity would be the first thing to go in my network.    > I >> > So, how do you get everyone that wants to send email to sign an AUP,  >>F >> You don't need everyone, only those who want to return email to the# >> useful form it had 20 years ago.  > 9 > But how does that help when there are those that don't?   C It helps me and those who do.  Those who don't are free to continue ? along the path they are on until Email becomes totally useless.    > L >> >                                 After all, who would the enforcing body >> > be? >>K >> If the users sign a contract, that would be the courts.  :-)  Especially 8 >> if the contract includes serious financial penalties. > A > What if you get hit with a fine because your PC got trojaned?     F You keep missing one big point.  There are no PC's sending email on myE network.  It isn't using SMTP and all the current attacks won't work. F Or, perhaps you mean hit with a fine by your ISP, well, that's betweenF you and your ISP.  It will be in the best interests of the ISP to takeC a more proactive role in keeping their customers PC's clean.  Right 1 now, they don't care because there is no penalty.   H >                                                                Are youH > going to quietly pay the fine, or are you fight it because you weren't > the one sending the spam.   G Umm...  If it's your PC, you are the one sending the spam.  If you sign G a contract and then violate it, I really think the courts are not going I to have much pity.  That might make PC users more carefull.  But the main I thing to remember, is that it is not really the unwashed masses that will H be interested in this.  It is people like you and me that actually want F email to be usable for serious communications.  The majority of todaysE users will stay on the standard INTERNET Email system and continue to G send their chain-letters and jokes.  And those who take Email seriously F can exchange their serious email on the new network with others of theD same ilk while agressively filtering and blocking the INTERNET email system.    > : >> >         We have ISP's and providers with AUP's today. >>J >> Name one ISP that has an AUP that includes a serious fine for spamming! > E > Been there, done that, didn't work.  You end up punishing the wrong ! > people, like in the case above.   H Can't.  If the PC sent the spam because the PC user is an idiot, then itK is totally his fault. ISP's can stop this.  Right now, they have absolutely G no incentive to do so.  Some will continue.  I (personally, not my mail F server) have not accepted email from any AOL account in seceral years.F I also do onot accept any email from any domain that ends in ".br" andG others.  You know what.  I have yet to miss anything.  Or are you going J to tell me I missed that announcement that I won the $10,000,000 Brazilian Lottery?   > K >> > Usenet news isn't good example, since it's been rampant with spam even I >> > before e-mail (remember the Brierbart Index and Cancelmoose?  Canter  >> > and Seigel?). >>K >> I didn't mean it as an example of a system that works perfectly, I meant H >> it as an example of a system that only works between "trusted hosts".L >> Try setting up a news server on your own.  It won't go very far until youL >> find at least one other News site willing to exchange with you.  There isJ >> really nothing to stop these "trusted hosts" from having stricter AUP'sJ >> so that none of the above existed.  As a matter of fact, I believe thatK >> was the intent of USENET-II (I haven't looked lately to see how this has  >> worked out.)  > F > Yes, but peering news isn't that difficult.  I used to when I was onH > Sprint as an ISP.  My current provider doesn't carry a feed, but thereE > are places that I can get a feed if I need it.  Even still, spam is , > still a big problem on Usenet, even today.  G Actually, it is much less of a problem than it is on email.  I see very F little spam on my newsfeed.  Probably less than 10 messages a month inG all the groups I actively read.  One of the reasons is that the limited F number of connectione between peers makes filtering much easier to do.H And, how is peering news any easier than peering email would be?  UsenetI News is a private network of peers who exchange information they consider : to be of value.  I think the same can be applied to Email.   > A >> > True, but those ISP's can be (and likely are) RBL'd against.  >>4 >> If they were, I wouldn't be getting the spam. :-) > G > Then either you are using the wrong RBL's, or you are not RBL-ing the ' > entire offending ISP's address space.   E But wait, one of your original problems with my proposed solution was F the liklihood of cutting off customers or potential customers.  Aren'tF you doing that when you RBL an entire ISP's address space?  If you areB not going to accept email from them, then you won't hear from thatI potential customer.  The big difference is the current method is reactive 9 and I think it is time for amuch more poractive solution.    > L >> > Sometimes it's not the money, but the expense.  Chasing and terminatingI >> > spammers takes time and effort.  Then they just get a new account or J >> > you end up with a new batch.  Eventually, it just cost less to ignore >> > it. >>J >> Unless you made them sign a contract in the first place that had severe >> financial penalties.  > E > But that didn't work.  Unless you require ALL ISP's to do that, and G > again that's a "social contract" you're not going to get all ISP"s to  > adhere to.    I Then they stay on the current network and risk having their email not get + delivered due to very aggressive filtering.   I >             However, you can RBL their address space until they do.  Or ? > whitelist (which helps but doesn't elimitate the issue due to  > Job-jobbing).   H Which is still an option.  As long as your going to use the term anyway,I think of my proposal as very agressive white-listing.  You have a network H of machines that are white-listed and because the method used to echangeE email is different, there is no way for someone not on the white-list  to break into it.    > K >> > But how do you reject it at the source?  You get a customer to sign an G >> > AUP?  As I mentioned, we've already gone through that whack-a-mole / >> > tactic of dealing with spammers years ago.  >>E >> But the AUP's they signed in most cases included no penalty beyond H >> loosing your account.  They need to carry serious financial penalties+ >> as money is all anyone understand today.  > G > You seem to honestly think that will work, since you continue to come H > back to that.  It doesn't work because you are either not punshing the > actual spammer,   G You keep coming back to the supposedly "innocent" PC owner.  Because my L network isn't open to the usual PC attacks, this isn't a problem. (Actually,G a PC could join the network, but the PC user would have to agree to the G same terms as any other mailhost and, he would have to more knowlegable @ than the average PC user and thus is not likely to be a threat.)  I >                 or the spammer just moves somewhere else or hides their  > activities via other tactics.   F That only works today because they can get annonymous connections.  InB order to join my porposed network, they would have to give up thatD anonymity.  Being as it is unlikely any of them would, they will notB show up on my network.  They are free to continue their activitiesD on the INTERNET Email system which I am free to aggressively filter.   > G >> > Exaclty - if a spammer spams through your mail server, and it gets K >> > blocks (i.e. you socially disagree to accept their email traffic), all I >> > your customers are punished.  Not good for your business.  You can't D >> > stay in business when you treat all your customers like crooks. >>H >> Under my system, one would assume that the peers would not need to beH >> so draconian as to cut someone off on the first incident.  Of course,K >> it would likely depend on how the originating site handled the incident. K >> If they had in their AUP (agreed to as a contract so that the courts are J >> an arbiter) something along the lines of a $1000 fine for each incidentE >> of SPAM sent by the customer and they enforced it, it wouldbe very G >> un-profitable to end spam and there would be little if any chance of I >> not getting caught.  Thus removing the greatest incentive to spamming.  > H > Okay, your zombied PC is invovled in a spam run.  Are you going to pay@ > the $1,000 fine?  A 0-day exploit is found in your system, andH > overnight you send out 1,000,000 spams.  You get the bill.  Do you pay > it?   C If you signed a contract, do you have a choice?  Of course, you are A free to seek redress from the person who infected your PC, but it D doesn't excuse you from your contractual obligations.  To be honest,A I don't see it happening.  The entire architecture of my proposed G network would stand in the way.  All of these attacks you keep bringing F up rely on one thing in particular and that is the fact that under theD current email architecture on the INTERENT any machinecan send emailD to any other machine.  Some of them blindly accept email from any ofD these random machines.  That is the major flaw in the system and one0 that is the first thing my proposal gets rid of.   > L >> > No, it has to be.  There is just too much damage via phishing, identifyK >> > theft, DDoS, and more to allow hundreds of thousands of Billy boxes on I >> > the network.  The cost is too high, and currently Microsoft does not H >> > have the pressure to to substantially fix it, despite the financialI >> > loss caused by zombied machines.  Either they need to be hardened or E >> > more isolated.  Maybe Microsoft can't do it, but eventually some D >> > government or business is going to take a huge loss (probably a@ >> > lawsuit) due to damage caused by one or more Windows boxes. >>H >> Sorry, but I don't believe this will happen until MS runs it's course) >> and is supplanted by something better.  > B > I can only hope.  Maybe Linux, since there seems to be much moreH > security and less abuse of Linux systems out there.  I've only had twoI > times ever where a Linux box on my network has been exploited (and even I > then, the exposure was limited) - one by a XML PHP script one a friends I > web server (which the fix are readily available) and a SSL V2 flaw many  > years ago.  E But, regardless of the OS involved, the major flaw still exists.  Any G machine can send email to any other machine.  And, add to that how easy H it is to spoof identitiy under SMTP and the problem still exists.  It is- these two fatal flaws that I eliminate first.    > H > Like I said, perhaps when companies and people start dropping MS afterF > that potential huge Multi-Mil-$ class-action lawsuit, we'll see some7 > REALLY serious action from MS on "Trusted Computing".  > G >> > Eventually, someone is going to get an identity theft class-action I >> > lawsuit against a company, and will win because they can demonstrate K >> > that the data on their Windows boxes was exploited because they either L >> > didn't update their virus definitions enough, or missed a service pack. >>K >> But you just gave the best defense.  The user "didn't update their virus K >> definitions enough, or missed a service pack" and thus, it was their own 	 >> fault.  > D > You don't see it, do you?  The COMPANY missed a service pack/virusC > update.  The USERS data was on the COMPANY's computer.  Jury will E > probably award large damages.  Company will review putting critical & > data on MS software, as will others.  J MS has been in court before.  The courts chose to punish them by extendingE their reach.  All of these problems are already well known.  HIPPA is E probably the biggest data protection responsibility  with the biggest E teeth.  And yet, hospitals are rushing headlong into putting more and E more of their infrastructure on PC's running MS software.  Go figure.    > G >> > And frankly, I was around in the old Usenet days, too, but I never A >> > signed an AUP to prevent me from spamming or any such thing.  >>M >> What's your point?  Back in those days there were machines on the DARPANET I >> that didn't even have passwords.  Society in general was different and G >> among the computer community in particular.  Draconian AUP's weren't J >> needed.  Of course, people also used to leave their cars and even their< >> houses unlocked, too.  I can't hink of many who still do. > F > Exactly.  Pandora's box has been openned.  Things that worked in theH > good old days just don't apply anymore and/or don't scale well.  AfterC > all, that's why DNS was born, since even in the early DARPA days, 3 > propogating a /etc/hosts wasn't feasible anymore.   D Which doesn't change under my proposal.  We still run DNS.  We stillE connect accross the INTERNET.  We just don't use SMTP for our serious E email.  Many people today agree that while it may have been nice when D it first came out it was not a well designed protocol and doesn't doE the job well.  So then, why are we still using it?  Inertia?  Why not G start a different system in paralel and let things continue to develop? E Maybe after seeing what happens between the two systems we might find G that there is a third, as yet un-designed, system that is the long-term  winner.    > K >> >                                                              Email was B >> > just a poor medium to spam, so it wasn't used that way.  YourG >> > "original Usenet days" weren't socially or technically better than 2 >> > before, just not viewed as a target of abuse. >>H >> I disagree.  I think they were better socially.  The lack of Spam wasI >> probably more due to the limited social coverage nature of the medium.  > D > Society has scammers, cons, thieves, and more.  D/ARPANET wasn't aI > target since there wasn't enough volume to be worth it.  Now instead of B > thousands of people, it's millions of people.  Not just researchB > scientists and Computer Science students.  It's kids, grandma's,? > executives, homeless - and the best and worst of all of them.   J Yeah, it's kind of like the difference between city life and country life.G Now, there's a social difference.  And there are many people who choose G to give up that urban paradise and go back to the rural existence.  So, J from a social standpoint is a good example of going backwards.  Of course,J there are people going the other way.  I am sure there are people who willJ find my system too restrictive.  And, they are free to move into the city.K But those of us who prefer a simpler existence should have that option too.    > I >> >                                                Usenet News was where F >> > the spamming problem started due to it's more "broadcast" nature.D >> > E-mail didn't become prevelent until the middle 1990's once theB >> > Internet started to gain mindshare and more people had e-mail  >> > (Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL). >>H >> There were lots of different Email systems in the past, USENET, FIDO,E >> Bitnet, etc.  And then there were the commercial services like you I >> mention, although Prodigy and AOL were latecommers.  there was TELENET L >> and TYMNET.  But what was lacking technically was the computing resources< >> and the conduit to handle the volume needed for spamming. > H > Not just the volume, but the target-rich environment.  How many peopleI > used to have e-mail 20 years ago?  FAXes where the big thing back then. ? >  But they had a "spamming" problem of their own, didn't they? D > Something the Telecommunication Protection Act of 1991 had to helpE > solve.  Well, it didn't so much, since the FCC had many forfeitures F > even as lately as a few of years ago with fax.com and American Blast > Fax. > / > Same scum, just adapting to newer technology.   I Granted, but I am not willing to just throw up my hands and say, "OK, the  spammers win!"   > K >> > Your sysadmin choice of social "trusts" have been implmented by public E >> > and private RBL lists, spamassasin, Bayesian and other filtering J >> > methods, but most can't just whitelist the rest of the world, either,H >> > since many people NEED to be contacted by previously unknown placesJ >> > (i.e. me).  And until you get that first spam (or subscribe to an RBLK >> > or other service to look at it for you), you really can't tell if it's  >> > spam yet. >>F >> As I said, RBL's is not a trusted host relationship it is trying toG >> put the responsibility on a third party and after the fact.  That is H >> a system destined to fail.  It must be stopped at the point of originG >> and before the fact.  It must be proactive and not reactive in order J >> to work.  If it is reactive, there are just too many potential spammers >> to deal with. > I > Sure it's a trust relationship.  You trust the RBL to help you validate ; > the sender is not a likely spammer.  Much like 3-rd party / > authentication is commonly done with SSL/TLS.   J But it's reactive and it is strictly a one-way trust relationship.  That'sJ not what a society is all about. the trust has to be in both directions or it isn't a society.    > I > But as I've mentioned, you can't stop the "point of origin" due to much F > of the fraud and unauthorized use of zombied PC's, open proxies, and/ > various software exploits curerntly in use.     G But, again, those attacks all rely on the two fatal flaws of SMTP.  The H ability of any machine to connect to any other machine for the excahnageH of mail (this one coupled to the willingness of most machines to blindlyF accept it) and the ability under SMTP to spoof your identity.  Neither3 of which will be possible under my proposed system.   H >                                              Since often, the ReceivedD > header you track either is fradulent, or only gets you back to the@ > exploited system - not back the the actual spammer in control.  C Actually, I have yet to receive any email message that I could not  B identify the actual IP Address of the real sender.  And, there canA be no doubt about where any particular message enters my proposed  network.   > I > The problem is oh-so-much bigger than just getting Ma Kettle to sign an E > AUP saying she won't spam.  She won't, but that doesn't mean her PC . > won't be an unwitting accomplice to the act.  G One:  That is between her and her ISP.  If the ISP cares they will take F a more proactive role in preventing it.  (Hint:  I run a lot's of PC'sG that are open to all our students.  While the University constantly has E doezens of infected PC's in its labs, I hve not had an infected PC in ) any of my labs since the Windows98 days.) H Two:  If the ISP is not interested, fine, they don't join my network andF are free to stay out there on the INTERNET with an email to spam ratio of 2%/98%.     > I >> > But as the whack-a-moles at ISP's worked (socially terminating their & >> > connectivity for AUP violations), >>3 >> More agressive penalties are needed in the AUP!!  > G > But you can't require that, nor can you be assured that the penalties ) > actually punish the spammer in control.   E Of course I can.  If you won't play by my rules, you don't play in my $ sandbox.  Ever hear of INTERNET-2?     > K >> >                                   spammers just used different tricks, " >> > like third party SMTP relays, >>G >> You don't relay.  Oh, and did I mention that my proposal doesn't use 
 >> SMTP.  :-)  > D > No, you didn't mention that.  So how do you get the whole world to > switch to your protocol,    C Actually, I have mentioned it numerous times.  I don't give a rat's @ patootie about the whole world, only those who are interested inB making Email useful again.  It's not my protocol. It's been aroundG for a couple decades and is supported by lots of boxes as well. (Pretty C much any UNIX system and ther eused to be versions for VMS as well, E but like much other software, I can't really say that the VMS version  kept up.)  It's called UUCP.  C >                          and why is it unable to be exploited any  > differently than SMTP has?  H Because, it lacks two of the basic flaws of SMTP.  The ability of randomH machines to connect to anyone else and the ability to spoof who you are.   > E >> >                               exploitation of WinGate firewalls,  >>G >> 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 >>F >> Well, I won't even go into the potential security problems with anyE >> 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. >>L >> >                                      (which I have a spammer attemptingA >> > to do that off the Hobbyist web form for the past few days - H >> > topcopl2@aol.com), abuse of SOCKS4 proxies, and the growing tide of >> > bot-nets. >>K >> I'll bet all of these depend on SMTP as the underlying protocol and they   >> also don't care who connects. >>E >> >           And forget just e-mail, IM spamming and web forum/blog & >> > spamming is on the increase, too. >>K >> They were never truly useful anyway, so I really don't care. I am trying : >> to salvage Email, let someone who cares fix the others. >>J >> >                                    The problem is whatever the socialK >> > contracts are, the spammers will violate them and bypass them, as they J >> > have for years.  Spammers have been fined, sued, terminated, blocked,J >> > and more (which is about as strong of a social solution statement you' >> > can make), yet they still persist.  >>I >> Sorry, I have never heard of any spammer who has been held financially > >> liable for his actions.  Please provide some real examples. > D > Read the news.  An owner of a bot-net recently got some jail time.  E What did he go to jail for?  I'll bet it wasn't spamming but probably  something like fraud.   D > Even back in the mid-90's Sanford Wallce lost a lawsuit to AOL for@ > spamming.  Several states (Washington State for one) have alsoC > prosocuted and won, too.  You honestly haven't heard about any of G > these?  Just read Slashdot or The Register on occasion.  Or read some ) > archives of news.admin.net-abuse.email.   E I stopped reading most of that because people were only interested in H trying to find away to fix the old system and seemed unwilling to accept= that the system might be flawed beyond the ability to fix it.   ? Those cases must not have been very groundshaking because there @ still an awful lot of spammers out there and they sure don't see< what happened to these two as a threat to their way of doing business.      > J >> > There is no one solution.  There may not be a solution.  But you alsoH >> > can't turn back the clock to the good ole days, either.  ProfiteersH >> > will try anything they can to exploit the system for a measly buck. >>K >> Or we can just sit here and let the bastards win.  Sorry, I would rather H >> try to convince people in a position to do something that the time is >> ripe for fixing things. > G > So, appearently you don't use SMTP, and you have to sign an agreement C > with someone somewhere.  Well, I guess it's a start, but how many - > people do you have buy in on this so far?     E Haven't started it yet.  I'm a small fish.  I work at a little school D in the middle of nowhere.  I am currently trying to write a paper onB it which I will likely try to get someone like The ACM to publish.E Other than that, I just try to discuss it, both to get other people's . ideas and to try and sow the seeds of thought.  C >                                           And exactly how does my F > email get from my server to your server when whatever paper work you7 > require is done?  And how is it not subject to abuse?   G Accross the INTERNET the same way it does now.  Only using UUCP instead E of SMTP.  It might surprise you to find out that most of the existing $ MTA's can still deal with UUCP.  :-)   > F > Part of the problem of your solution is that it requires cooperation2 > from a rather large number of ISP's and admins,   B No, only those who want to see Email become useful for their users@ again.  the rest are free to stay with what they currently have.? When USENET first came into existence it was just AT&T machines > exchanging email.  It had a number of serious limitations.  ItF used the phone system as it's transport.  That meant it was expensive.E More so depending on distance.  So it had to do most of its moving at F night. This meant time.  A message could take several days to get fromG source to destination.  And still it grew.  Eventually, hubs showed up. H Machines like seismo and others and eventually, UUNET.  This sped thingsE up a bit but it still required mostly waiting until nighttime to move F messages.  And still, it grew.  This was probably its biggest drawbackI and the one it no longer has as it can use the INTERNET for its transport  medium.   G It is not necessary for there to be a mass movement right up front.  It I can easily co-exist with the current system and be allowed to grow on its $ own.  Let's look at one possibility.  D We here in c.o.v are a rather well-kniit community.  So, we set up aC network that involves us.  Most of us would likely trust each other C making the agreement between us much easier.  Now, we can all agree @ to exchange email with everyone else, or we can have a couple ofB people (like Island and Montagar just for example) volunteer to beF hubs.  The hubs set up their UUCP to accept email from the mailserversG of the otehr members of the c.o.v community.  So, emails between any of E us goes to one of the hubs and then to the destination mailhost.  Two D hops and probably gets there just as fast it would under the currentF system.  Now, I'm a University.  Because of academic interests I startF getting agreements with other schools.  Some of the big ones might optD to be hubs (heck even I can do that!!).  Same thing as we had in theF c.o.v community.  But wait, now the c.o.v community also has a cleanerE way to exchange email with all the Universities that sign on.  And so % it grows.  At least in my dream.  :-)     C >                                                  several software  > developers,    What software developers?   D >              deployment across hundreds of thousands of servers.    < I doubt it, but thousands or tens of thousands I would hope.C I don't think there are a hudred thousand servers worth talking to. E I have Verizon at home.  I don't use their email.  Never have, likely A never will.  Of course, I can see it this were to take off that I E might move some of my less serious stuff (like Ebay, if I ever decide E to try it again) over to my Verizon account and leave my UofS account  for serious endeavors.  G >                                                                   And E > that's going to take some big doing and demonstration that what you  > propose WILL work.    B Thus my example above.  It is small serious communities that wouldD need to be convinced of its utility first.  I am sure once the firstD couple communities got started it would rapidly become apparent thatE the system had advantages.  An even better way to do this would be to C create a new email account specifically for use on the neew network C which would make the difference even more apparent.  After all, in  D just the time I have been typing this I have received 6 emails.  AllH spam.  So far this weekend (counting since Thanksgiving) I have receivedF over 60 emails. All of them spam.  There comes a time when you have toF just throw up the window, stick your head out and scream, "I'm  mad as, hell and I am not going to take it anymore!"  G >                    So I think I might need to hear a little more than B > "Oh, and did I mention that my proposal doesn't use SMTP.  :-)".  C Well, I appreciate your comments.  Believe it or not, based on what H objections you offered, I am more convinced that the proposal is doable.G Part of getting this together is having peopel try to shoot holes in my G idea.  But then, that's what academia is all about.  I only hope that I C can take this beyond the level of academics and into the real world  where it counts.   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: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:24:27 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net># Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues ; Message-ID: <LL0ah.4108$qd7.3400@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    norm.raphael@metso.com wrote:   F Could you check your posting software as your reply is in  plain text B and html but the html section sets <font size=2> - making it tiny!  > I've extracted the mime bits below so you can see what I mean.  + This is a multipart message in MIME format. " --=_alternative 00572C6185257231_=, Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" ...  ...  message in text  ... " --=_alternative 00572C6185257231_=+ Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"      <br>3 <br><font size=2><tt>&quot;Richard B. Gilbert&quot;   ( **Note the <font size=2> in above line** --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:43:56 -0500 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> # Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues : Message-ID: <Jomdne1dbdaQNvXYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>   JF Mezei wrote:    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:  > H >> Then perhaps people should be reporting the log number of calls that - >> were not handled in a satisfactory manner.  >  > H > And Sue should be thanked for offering to champion the cause of those F > not getting good support in exchange for "hard" data on those calls. > G > However, when you must tell everyone within your company "because of  E > call quality issues, whenever you call HP, you must write down all  K > relevant details, and insist on call log number and write down the names  I > of the people you have spoken with and time on hold etc"  it makes the  H > vendor look pretty bad in a very public (internally) way. So when the H > time comes to justify staying on VMS, you can't use the "VMS has good = > support" argument anymore because of all the bad publicity.   F This sounds a little strange!  For every service contract I ever had, E there was a designated contact person; e.g. me.   There was an extra  F charge for additional contacts.  It was never the case that anyone in H the company who had a problem called support directly.   They called me - and if I couldn't solve it, I called support!    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:38:23 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> # Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues 7 Message-ID: <2afde$45691a22$cef8887a$3975@TEKSAVVY.COM>    David J Dachtera wrote:   Q > ..., or, stated more succinctly, it is not the customer's job to fix a vendor's  > broken systems.   E I agree in principle. However, here we have an HP employee sincerely  K wanting to help fix the internal problems and asking the VMS community for  0 some ammunition to help her move some mountains.  K In that context, it is not much to ask the VMS community to do a bit extra  K and log the call numbers and report back to Sue where there is bad service.   I Is Sue goes to management and says that people on C.O.V. are complaining  J about support quality , but she cannot provide any concrete examples, how K seriously do you think her statements will be taken ? Consider that C.O.V.  D is often seen as "complain.OS.VMS" by certain key management people.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:07:25 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> # Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues 9 Message-ID: <IrednRAyF5OHvPTYnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@libcom.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > David J Dachtera wrote:  > J >> ..., or, stated more succinctly, it is not the customer's job to fix a  >> vendor's  >> broken systems.   > G > I agree in principle. However, here we have an HP employee sincerely  I > wanting to help fix the internal problems and asking the VMS community  6 > for some ammunition to help her move some mountains. > G > In that context, it is not much to ask the VMS community to do a bit  K > extra and log the call numbers and report back to Sue where there is bad  
 > service. > K > Is Sue goes to management and says that people on C.O.V. are complaining  H > about support quality , but she cannot provide any concrete examples, J > how seriously do you think her statements will be taken ? Consider that M > C.O.V. is often seen as "complain.OS.VMS" by certain key management people.   $ Got to (gag) agree with JF, (again).  I It's true that this isn't something a customer should be responsible for.   I But, when an HP employee offers to take your problems with HP support to  I management, I don't think it's too much to ask for a customer to provide  " some documentation on the problem.  H Hey, do you think she's going to get a cordial reception from those who I moved support offshore?  They will not be happy with her actions.  She's  I   offering to place her neck on the chopping block, and if it's too much  E to document problems and forward the data to her, maybe that Ok, Sue    won't then need to risk herself.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------    Date: 25 Nov 2006 21:35:34 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com># Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues B Message-ID: <1164519334.263152.281730@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com>   [duplicated section omitted] > > David J Dachtera wrote:  > > > Sue wrote: > > > I > > >>I have requested information that I can take to management to prove G > > >>that there is an issue and as of yet I have not received one mail M > > >>message detaling the issues at hand.  Granted it is much easier to talk < > > >>about how bad the problem is but fixing it takes work. > > >  > > > S > > > We tend to focus on addressing the issue which caused the support call first. Q > > > We've tended not to document the progress of support calls. It is generally V > > > assumed that the call tracking system does this on its own, without the customerT > > > needing to take specific action (who received the call, at what time, the timeR > > > at which the called was transferred to the next person, if/when the customerU > > > called back, who received the call, how long did that conversation last, etc.). S > > > This impression comes from the message one hears when placing the call: "This > > > > call may be monitored or recorded for quality purposes." > @ > > There is nothing that Sue or anyone else can do without someG > > documentation; if you want something done, you need to provide that L > > documentation!  In the absence of documentation one is inclined to thinkK > > that some people would rather have something to complain about than get  > > something fixed. >  > > > < > > > Perhaps more recording/monitoring needs to take place. > Q > ..., or, stated more succinctly, it is not the customer's job to fix a vendor's M > broken systems. That onus falls squarely on the vendor. In fact, the vendor R > should be making its money by contractimng to fix the customer's broken systems,N > not the other way around. If a customer has to go to such lengths because ofP > changes within a vendor's organization, it may be time for the customer to cutQ > its losses and find a more responsive, "customer focused"* vendor. (*: Remember $ > that phrase from not so long ago?)  D Yes, we shouldn't have to help the vendor fix his problems. But it'sF more our problem than theirs. Life is full of "we shouldn't have tos",G but sometimes, you do it anyway, if you want it fixed. Sue is trying to G help. Let us help her help us. This reminds me of Jason Alexander's old E show (Bob Patterson Show[?]) which posted an ad saying, "Help me help B you help me help you." &-) (Well, it reminds me of the ad, not the show, which I never saw.)    > O > Unless "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality purposes" is total O > B.S., the needed mechanisms should already be in place - they just need to be P > exercised more vigorously and extensively with the results being reviewed moreO > thoroughly and critically, with an ear geared toward the customer's paradigm.   A Perhaps they're just trying to make sure the support people don't B verbally abuse the customers, or lie to the customer, or forget toE mention the ink cartridge special of the week (just kidding), etc. It ; all comes down to "What do you mean by 'quality control'?".    >  > -- > David J Dachtera > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/ [...]  AEF    ------------------------------    Date: 25 Nov 2006 21:47:50 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com># Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues C Message-ID: <1164520070.551042.321500@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Dave Froble wrote: > Beach Runner wrote:  > > William Webb wrote: K > >>>> VMS is still great. And there still are lots of great VMS people and  > >>> applications.  > >>> F > >>> We can direct that our money be moved elsewhere. There are otherJ > >>> organizations that will support VMS. Make sure that HP knows why theI > >>> big money is being spent elsewhere.  Just like a bad dog, rub it in K > >>> their noses.  And, please not at the engineer and support level.  Get K > >>> good examples of the types of support, sales and elevation issues you L > >>> run into. Don't blame it on the poor techie in India, it's not his/her > >>> fault. > >>> L > >>> The best thing would be if HP sells OpenVMS. They know of course, thatJ > >>> allowed to compete in the real marketplace, it would be a gem again. > >>>  > >>> , > >> As Bill Cosby used to say-  LookDammit! > >>D > >> Sue asked for something specific and you just spit in her face. > >>2 > >> Thanks a lot.  Your post really helps things. > >>H > >> Most of the time my issues are hardware-related.  I either send theG > >> onsite guy an email or I walk downstairs to his office and we talk ( > >> about it.  Or I just fix it myself. > >>J > >> I only call support on OS or "software" issues once or twice a month-J > >> it's usually when I find something isn't behaving the way TFM says it: > >> should, or something *seriously* obscure is involved. > >>- > >> I reiterate what I've posted previously.  > >> > >> Write Sue.  Politely. > >> > >> Write Mr. Hurd.  Politely.  > >>" > >> Write Ann McQuaid.  Politely. > >>6 > >> Write each and every member of the BOD, politely. > >>H > >> Especially the outside directors- as the Corporate Rule is that theJ > >> inside folks tend to listen when the outside directors are saying, "I9 > >> got a bunch of letters about this- WTF is going on?"  > >>* > >> Don't just rant, you'll be dismissed. > >>. > >> Sue, as usual, is right.  Give specifics. > >>J > >> I have received follow-up calls which were clearly different that theJ > >> typical "on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being highly dissatisfied and 5F > >> being highly satisfied, please rate....---that we've all done forH > >> years-- on about 75 percent of the calls that I've placed that have > >> been routed offshore. > >>I > >> Remember, from the DECozoic Era through the Middle Compaq Period and H > >> even unto the present day, there is an extensive history of SurveysI > >> Being Important, and those of you who have been On Medallion Support + > >> for years know what I'm talking about.  > >>U > >> If you bitch about offshoring per se, you will probably be dismissed as a bigot. K > >> And perhaps rightly so, although I don't know you personally (at least  > >> I *think* I don't.) > >>G > >> I have been completely honest in my discussions on these follow-up K > >> calls-  I don't give a rodent's posterior about where the support call G > >> goes- I've dealt with DECfolk all over the world in the past-- the H > >> pertinent issue isn't the location of the support person-- it's the4 > >> level of training and resources that they have. > >>H > >> Also, what I care about is that the service level has deteriorated- > >>H > >> Where previously as a Gold Support customer, the call was taken andF > >> then forwarded to my TAM, who then decided upon either personallyE > >> owning the call and researching the issue, or referring it to an  > >> appropriate backline--  > >>H > >> Now after my call is taken, it is routed to a Tier 1 line where the@ > >> level of knowledge is orders of magnitude less than my own,H > >> communication is sometimes okay and sometimes, well, challenging... > >>J > >> But to be honest, they're where my VMS level of knowledge was in 1990K > >> or so- and one of the things that burns me up is that it takes fifteen < > >> or twenty minutes to even get a case number these days. > >>J > >> The people who are fielding these calls have neither the training norG > >> the expertise nor the access to certain in-house resources (STARS, D > >> anyone? or whatever it's called these days) to field calls fromJ > >> people, who, on average, have from fifteen to fifty times as much VMS > >> experience as they do.  > >>F > >> It's not fair to us and it's not fair to them, either.  It's like > >> lambs to the slaughter. > >>R > >> I know what's going on when I'm told that I'll get a callback in ten minutes. > >>J > >> This is the support equivalent of reducing the pound bag of coffee to > >> 11 1/2 ounces.  > >>F > >> And once the experience and knowledge is lost, it can't be gottenB > >> back.  That already happened with a StorageWorks design team. > >>9 > >> And a knowledgebase is no substitute for experience.  > >>( > >> WWWebb, speaking purely for myself. > >  > > Mr Webb, > > I > > I can understand your concept.  Use logic and reason, and that should  > > reach upper managementJ > > of HP.  It's a great idea.  It's also a fairy tale.  It won't change a > > thing.  Not one thing. > > G > > There is only one thing that will change things, and that's pulling  > > cash on the barrelhead.  > > H > > Perhaps Mr. Webb doesn't need VMS support, but many people have beenC > > paying for remedial and advisory for many years, and others for > > > elevated support.  While support is never a substitute forH > > reading the documentation, it is reasonable for someone that takes a# > > technical call to know VMS, not K > > simply have a very cursory understanding, some training, and limited if # > > any hands on experience at all.  > > H > > It is most clearly not a matter of prejudice as you wrote privately.K > > Many fine VMS people from around the world have lost their jobs. Either K > > they were RIF'd or left now to avoid the rush.  This is in support, VMS $ > > engineering and layered product. > > < > > How are the few people left going to handle their calls. > > F > > I can give examples of customers that complained and that got themG > > nowever.  They then held their check, cancelled their multi million E > > dollar orders, and THEN things changed.  THAT is what will make a  > > dramatic change. > > H > > Do you not think all logic and reason have not been applied?  Do youK > > not think that the great people still doing support, some of the finest H > > engineers in the industry, did not know what would happen, saw wouldD > > happen, and tried logic, reason and polite comments.    And that > > accomplished, what?  > > J > > I'm sorry if you think I spit in the face of Sue. I'm sure she is veryD > > well meaning and thinks that a few surverys and such will changeI > > things.   No logical or reasonable person would have been killing VMS 7 > > when there was a loyal and dedicated customer base.  > >  > > So, you have my apologies. > >  >  > Apologies for what?  >  > You're 100% correct! > J > Talk all you want, but as long as you're forking over the money, they'reJ > wearing earplugs and laughing at you for being such a fool that they can > 'take you' so easily.  > C > A similar type of case, and one that makes the point rather well.  > H > NBC does a show about GM truck fuel tanks rupturing and exploding in aJ > crash.  But they have a problem getting that to happen.  No problem, whoB > needs the truth, a trusty explosive charge will 'make' the news. > E > Problem is, the explosive went off too early.  Careful study of the 4 > video shows the tank explode before the collision. > G > Was NBC going to admit what they did?  No way!  Stick with the story. C > After all, they 'make' the news, to hell with reporting the news.  > G > And then GM pulls their entire advertising budget from NBC.  (Anybody E > that still watches any TV will understand that automotive companies G > spend lots of money on advertising.)  After massive cardiac arrest in J > NBC corporate offices, a retraction was issued and I believe an apology. >  > Bottom line, MONEY TALKS!  >  > --6 > David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450@ > Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com > DFE Ultralights, Inc.  > 170 Grimplin Road  > Vanderbilt, PA  15486   F Well, it may be that writing won't help in this case. But sometimes itD does. It saved Star Trek TOS once (but not the second time), and got Paramount to make a movie.  F But if you do write, be polite and to the point and try to show how itA affects HP or whoever is reading it. Hey, it's not like you'll be F spending months writing a novel, or breaking your back digging a moat.F It's just a letter or two, ... or three. But when you're done with theD letter, put it down. Wait some time. And then pick up the letter andG read it imagining someone sent it to you. How would you react to it? If B you'd react negatively, tear it up and try again. Yeah, it may not. work, but doing nothing definitely won't work.  F Remember baseball. We've all seen it. The umpire makes a controversialE call. One of the managers comes out of the dugout and goes to yell at C and argue with the ump. Has that ever, even once, changed the ump's C mind? I've never seen it. Even if it has happened, it's certainly a 6 tiny minority of all such arguments. So keep it civil.  F Cancelling your support contract (or not renewing it, or whatever) mayD also help. And who knows? It may not. They might not care even about6 that! But when you've got nothing to lose...go for it!   AEF    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:37:13 -0600 ! From: John <norad869@comcast.net> % Subject: Re: optimal drives for HSG80 * Message-ID: <4568E1B9.5010905@comcast.net>  ( How do you have your drives configured? + Are they RAID-5 or RAID-0 or RAID 10 (0+1)?  How many disks in a RAID set? 6 What type of RAID sets?  Partition sets of 1:1 volume? Etc.,...< (other factors, O/S version?, VCC cache vs. XFC cache, etc.)  I I have experienced performance gains of 2.5x when moving from 10K to 15K  5 disks - this was on an extremely busy storage system. , This was an upgrade from ESA to EMA storage.  I On not so busy storage systems I have noted no difference in performance  @ between 10K and 15K - at least from the aspect of the O/S.  The < controllers I am certain were busier with caching the data.   G Cache is good - however the HSG80 controller is (I believe) SCSI-2 and   therefore just not that fast.   G By the way, 15K disks are not supported in the SBB style disk (the old  F StorageWorks plastic casing - ESA series) - not sure of what you have F but 4 shelves and 6 drives is typical of the ESA - sounds like 10K is > the best you can do - unless you upgrade the shelving for the > controllers and disks and replace the disks with the UC style.  G I have 10K drives that are 7+ years old - no problems, I am sure there  F are eventual limits to the life span of a disk drive but I have noted B that the 15K drives seem to have failed more often than the 10K.  G Nothing conclusive just observed.  Factors of environmental, new/used,   etc. play a part in this.          Tom Linden wrote:   D > I am considering replacing the 18GB drives in my HSG80 with largerB > capacity.  Newer drives vary greatly in performance, e.g., speed0 > transfer rate and cache size and therefor cost > F > There are 4 shelves each with 6 drives and mirrored controllers withF > 256MByte caches, organized as 3 raid arrays.  There are 5 bad drivesE > in the system, so rather than replacing with same, why not upgrade. C > The controllers are cross-strapped to two 1Gb FC switches  and in ' > their turn to dual HBAs in each node.  > G > So the question arises what the optimum drive looks like.  Does cache H > on the drive do any good?  Too fast a transfer rate would be masked byH > that of the HSG80.  What about spin rate?  Slower drive I would assumeI > is likely more reliable.  The difference in latency between 10K and 15K - > probably wouldn't noticeable in this system  >  > Appreciate your thoughts.  > Tom  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:20:01 -0500 - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> 4 Subject: renderext 0.9 for OpenVMS (X11 definitions); Message-ID: <Y7idnXNM07l8ZPXYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@adelphia.com>                     Render             X Render Extension               Version 0.8                2003-4-21  E This package contains header files and documentation for the X render < extension.  Library and server implementations are separate.  
 Keith Packard  keithp@keithp.com   I The renderext definitions are used in the building of several OpenSource  A products, including the ones that are used for building GTK+ 2.x.   : http://xlibs.freedesktop.org/release/renderext-0.9.tar.bz2  H This is the current renderext release, 0.9, edited and packaged for use B with programs built with GNV.  The render.pc file is provided for  pkg-config use.   B If you do not have DECWindows-Motif installed and the current GNV 4 installed, then this library is probably not of use.  H Keith has a file named COPYING. supplied with this software that states H there are no restrictions on it's use, provided his copyright notice is G intact and that his name is not used in the promotion of any resulting  I products.  See the file COPYING or the kit release notes for the details.    Currently this package is at:   Q http://encompasserve.org/~malmberg/GNV/JEM-VMS-RENDEREXT-V0009--1.PCSI$COMPRESSED    -John  wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only    --  < Need a senior system engineer?  I am looking for employment.: http://encompasserve.org/~malmberg/MALMBERG_CS1_RESUME.TXT   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:56:13 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> : Subject: Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory9 Message-ID: <BP6dnT1hJrtFDPXYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@libcom.com>    Malcolm Dunnett wrote:= > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message  / > news:ZYVUt35do3e5@eisner.encompasserve.org... > >>>>     I realize that, but I thought I should give it a try.8 >>> Now why would you have such a lapse in common sense? >>> I >>> I realize there can be reasons to run Phase 5, but if you do not have 6 >>> one of these reasons,  my question is appropriate.J >> Getting experience running it seems like a good reason, taking time nowE >> against the day when one of those business-critical needs arrives.  > C > That's pretty much my reason. These systems are development boxes H > where I'm investigating porting our applications to Itanium. I thoughtE > after all these years of  Phase V being out there I should see what K > it's all about. I'm also cognizant of the fact that Phase IV is no longer C > supported without a special support addendum, which I don't have. L > I know it's very stable and that's not likely to be an issue, but still... > E > Our network is not multiprotocol routing, it's IP only. The ability @ > to run DECNet over IP interests me - I currently have a couple9 > of DECNet Phase IV nodes at another campus which I link : > to using the DECNET over IP feature of Multinet, but I'm> > interested in how that compares to the capability in Phase V > E > In any case it appears in the end this is not specifically a DECNet @ > problem (see my last posting), it could potentially affect any? > system code, it just happens to be the installation of DECNet  > that triggered it here.  >  >   ? Being able to route DECnet over TCP/IP is one of those reasons.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------    Date: 25 Nov 2006 16:01:11 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) : Subject: Re: SYSTEM-F-INFSMEM, insufficient dynamic memory3 Message-ID: <NUZMhgkDsVVF@eisner.encompasserve.org>   c In article <BP6dnQJhJrv3DPXYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@libcom.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > Larry Kilgallen wrote:  J >> Getting experience running it seems like a good reason, taking time nowE >> against the day when one of those business-critical needs arrives.  > J > I don't buy that argument.  It's too much like "VMS may die, we have to H > migrate now".  In either case, if the possible (not inevitable) event K > occurs, there will be an opportunity to address it at the time it occurs.   C Not if you are looking for a job and they want to hire someone with C hands-on Phase V experience.  By the time you get up to speed, they  will have hired someone else.   B I said nothing about anything dying.  There is software today thatB requires DECnet-Plus.  There are managements that require it.   SoD long as you can predict that you will never have anything to do with% either, avoiding it entirely is safe.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.650 ************************