1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 27 Nov 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 652       Contents: Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3) , Re: increase in spam and what to do about it7 JPEG 6B for OpenVMS Alpha 8.2 - GNV style shared image.  Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues- Re: Oracle 9i and VMS multihome configuration 4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:46:11 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3)8 Message-ID: <21820$456a3538$cef8887a$21093@TEKSAVVY.COM>   George Cook wrote:L > Perhaps it bears repeating: "Pixmaps are created and exist on the server."4 > They are not duplicates of anything on the client.    I But the application on the client is the one that opens a GOf or JPEG or  I whatever, uncompresses and then sends it to the client in pixmap format.  L And at least in the case of Mozilla, it appears that it keeps a copy of all L images needed for the current web page. Why else would both mozilla and the J server require such ridiculously high amounts of memory ? If it were just I the X server, then mozilla wouldn't also need equal amounts of memory to   load a image-rich web page.    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:36:32 -0800 From: davidc@montagar.com 5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it C Message-ID: <1164591391.999832.173820@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:D > In article <1164427612.373176.124490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > 	davidc@montagar.com writes: > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > I > > And I guess I'm still not sure exactly how your method is to actually A > > 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 A > really new or inovative in what I am proposing, only in the way  > I see it being implemented.   F See, already you have a wide variety of "procedures" from handshake toF more from every mailhost which with you want to communicate.  That's aE lot of agreements to manage, and for companies, you can bet the legal D departments are going to get involved.  Once you go to "agreements",F especially as you want them to be "legally binding" and have financialD penalties, the corporate mavens are going to start to have problems.( Even most educational institutions, too.  E Usenet may or may not require an agreement to peer with them, but you G are also talking about 1 specific protocol, and that argeement does not B cover, nor does it assure you of a spamless feed, due to all otherF hosts that contribute as part of the Usenet "feed".  It is a broadcastD network (I've written software for NNTP) using a store-and-propogate> technique to distribute ALL articles to ALL hosts.  It's not a= one-to-one messaging, but a one-to-many messaging (hence it's 4 attractiveness as a spam method long before e-mail).  D > > I would at least venture that it hasn't been accepted yet, then? > H > Well, being as it's still just an idea and hasn't been proposed yet...  F One of the biggest setbacks I see in your proposal is that traditionalC SMTP is still advantagous, since you may or may not have sufficient  "agreements" in place.  B > > Agreed, even AOL has had lots of complains about it's plans toI > > implement something like this.  How do you punish the abusers without K > > inflicting punishment or worse on the vast majority of people who don't 
 > > abuse it?  > I > By making the users (at least the one's you don't trust) sign a legally I > binding contract that has the ability to impose real penalties on those  > who violate it.   F Okay, but as soon as you do that "at least the one's you don't trust"," you open yourself up to a lawsuit.  K > > Back in the mid '90's, such things were done.  Erols and other networks K > > had fines and such for spammers.  It didn't work.  This again referrers G > > to the "whack-a-mole" game of spammer termination.  Also, often the K > > spammers would sign up with accounts using credit cards of the clients,   > > or even stolen credit cards. > . > Ummm....   That's a crime, probably federal.  > You are 100% correct.  Sad part is that the dollar amounts areF generally so low that there is little chance of getting it prosecuted.? These are the people you are trying to require "agreements" and D "contracts" - essentially criminals.  They would sign your agreementG and then use it to line their bird cage before starting their next spam B run.  By the time you find out, they're done and have disappeared.  D Read and look at many of the things spammers have done in the past -? violationed AUP's, credit card fraud, phishing, trojan bot-nets A (SpamThru as one of the latest), and more.  That's what I've been ! trying to underscore to you here.   F > If you make the users identify themselves and sign a legally bindingE > contract you know who they are and they can't have 10 more accounts 
 > waiting.  F Exactly how do you do that?  And how do you know they are using forged5 documents/identity they've phished from someone else?   E > And, because my proposal doesn't use SMTP at all, none of the above  > pose a threat.  G A description of that protocol would be nice.  Who's going to implement G it?  What vendors are going to back it?  What client software will work  with it?  K > > Also, how do you require uniform AUP's across ISP of various countries?  > I > It is all based on agreements between individuals.  Regardless of where G > one is I can require whatever I want or refuse to let them play in my 
 > sandbox.  B And why would they alter their policies to fit your needs?  Is theF effort and dealing with their legal department worth the effort for an email?  D > > Yes, but they really have no teeth, the spammers are often using > > fraudulent information,  > H > If I don't know/trust the individual, I require them to prove who theyJ > are.  How is that any different than when someone walks into a store andG > plops a credit card down?  Fraud is illegal.  As near as I know, that 1 > applies in pretty much every civilized country.   F Spammer often operate illegally.  Many of the techniques that spammersF use are marginally to explicitly illegal - yet they persist.  What youG are proposing assumes they aren't.  From what I see, that is one of the C biggest problems with your proposal.  You assume honesty, much like  Usenet of old.   > B > >                         or on ISP which don't have strong AUP, > H > I don't let them join the network until they agree to institute an AUP, > that meets the requirements of my network.  E And what level of effort does that take?  You'll see where I'm coming  from on that point later...   H > > You are assuming the spammers are Law Abiding Honest Citizens.  That7 > > may be true of Usenet back in the day, not anymore.  > D > In order to join the nework, they will have to positively identify@ > themselves.  If they choose to violate the law after they haveD > positively identified themselves, well, that's what the courts are > for.  :-)   D Good luck getting it prosecuted, though.  Really.  They find out whoA you peer with and get an account  with them, say, AOL.  Then spam G through AOL.  Wouldn't be the first time AOL had that happen.  Probably D not the last.  Then you either terminate exchange with AOL or put upA with AOL playing whack-a-mole on a daily basis.  Which do you do?   I > > Sure they did.  It just didn't stop the spammers.  Because they don't 	 > > care.  > G > You can't posibly tell me that a spammer is going to continue to spam F > if he has been positively identified and faces penalties of hundreds3 > of thousands (or more) dollars for his violation.   = YES.  Because they will use fradulent identities to avoid the D penalties.  Prosecuting that is not as trivial as you think, anymore than credit card fraud is now.  G > The reason they don't care now is because in most cases they can't be K > identified.  This anonymity would be the first thing to go in my network.   F Good luck.  Unless each INDIVIDUAL is known to you, how can you verifyE the true authorship of any mail from someone who may be coming from a 
 trusted host?   ; > > But how does that help when there are those that don't?  > E > It helps me and those who do.  Those who don't are free to continue A > along the path they are on until Email becomes totally useless.   F Or yuo determine that you simply cannot completely trust anyone, or so+ few that, that your solution doesn't scale.   A > > What if you get hit with a fine because your PC got trojaned?  > H > You keep missing one big point.  There are no PC's sending email on myG > network.  It isn't using SMTP and all the current attacks won't work. H > Or, perhaps you mean hit with a fine by your ISP, well, that's betweenH > you and your ISP.  It will be in the best interests of the ISP to takeE > a more proactive role in keeping their customers PC's clean.  Right 3 > now, they don't care because there is no penalty.   D Do you want to be the ISP that sues a grandmother on a fixed pensionF for several thousand dollars because her PC got hijacked?  How long do% you think you would stay in business?   J > >                                                                Are youJ > > going to quietly pay the fine, or are you fight it because you weren't > > the one sending the spam.  > I > Umm...  If it's your PC, you are the one sending the spam.  If you sign I > a contract and then violate it, I really think the courts are not going K > to have much pity.  That might make PC users more carefull.  But the main K > thing to remember, is that it is not really the unwashed masses that will I > be interested in this.  It is people like you and me that actually want H > email to be usable for serious communications.  The majority of todaysG > users will stay on the standard INTERNET Email system and continue to I > send their chain-letters and jokes.  And those who take Email seriously H > can exchange their serious email on the new network with others of theF > same ilk while agressively filtering and blocking the INTERNET email	 > system.   C No, really.  I mean YOU.  What if YOUR PC get's a 0-day exploit and D sends spam.  Are you going to pay the fine?  Or as the mailadmin, do you get off?  G > > Been there, done that, didn't work.  You end up punishing the wrong # > > people, like in the case above.  > J > Can't.  If the PC sent the spam because the PC user is an idiot, then itM > is totally his fault. ISP's can stop this.  Right now, they have absolutely I > no incentive to do so.  Some will continue.  I (personally, not my mail H > server) have not accepted email from any AOL account in seceral years.H > I also do onot accept any email from any domain that ends in ".br" andI > others.  You know what.  I have yet to miss anything.  Or are you going L > to tell me I missed that announcement that I won the $10,000,000 Brazilian
 > Lottery?  @ Yes, but as the Hobbyist Program, I get e-mail from a variety ofC locations.  I can't just blanket drop entire countries or ISP's.  I @ certainly don't want to go through the process of getting signed@ documents between me and some ISP just because someone has a PAKC question.  I'm sure there are many other institutions with the same  issues.   H > > Yes, but peering news isn't that difficult.  I used to when I was onJ > > Sprint as an ISP.  My current provider doesn't carry a feed, but thereG > > are places that I can get a feed if I need it.  Even still, spam is . > > still a big problem on Usenet, even today. > I > Actually, it is much less of a problem than it is on email.  I see very H > little spam on my newsfeed.  Probably less than 10 messages a month inI > all the groups I actively read.  One of the reasons is that the limited H > number of connectione between peers makes filtering much easier to do.J > And, how is peering news any easier than peering email would be?  UsenetK > 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.  ; Yes, but that is due to the efforts of many contributors to F news.admin.net-abuse.news, enforcements of the Brierbart Index testing= for spam messages, and often the specific groups in question.   I > > Then either you are using the wrong RBL's, or you are not RBL-ing the ) > > entire offending ISP's address space.  > G > But wait, one of your original problems with my proposed solution was H > the liklihood of cutting off customers or potential customers.  Aren'tH > you doing that when you RBL an entire ISP's address space?  If you areD > not going to accept email from them, then you won't hear from thatK > potential customer.  The big difference is the current method is reactive ; > and I think it is time for amuch more poractive solution.   F Depends on the RBL, and whether it is used to completely block or flagE the message.  In your solution, they would have to contact me outside D of email, and negotiate a peering agreement.  Is that worth it for aF single e-mail?  But they time you do that, why use e-mail at all, just' send physical documents or phone calls.   F The reactive method assumes honest behaviour, yours burdens the honest right up front.   K > >             However, you can RBL their address space until they do.  Or A > > whitelist (which helps but doesn't elimitate the issue due to  > > Job-jobbing).  > J > Which is still an option.  As long as your going to use the term anyway,K > think of my proposal as very agressive white-listing.  You have a network J > of machines that are white-listed and because the method used to echangeG > email is different, there is no way for someone not on the white-list  > to break into it.   E Wrong - zombied PC's and JoeJobbing.  How does your system stop that?   I > > You seem to honestly think that will work, since you continue to come J > > back to that.  It doesn't work because you are either not punshing the > > actual spammer,  > I > You keep coming back to the supposedly "innocent" PC owner.  Because my N > network isn't open to the usual PC attacks, this isn't a problem. (Actually,I > a PC could join the network, but the PC user would have to agree to the I > same terms as any other mailhost and, he would have to more knowlegable B > than the average PC user and thus is not likely to be a threat.)  D No, your SERVERS aren't open to the usual attacks, but somehow, thatE message HAS to make it from a users PC to a server running your magic C software.  All you've done is established a hude set of 1-1 peering   between thousands of mail hosts.  E Do the math, let's assume most everyone is going to be good citizens. E There are 1,000 mail hosts.  How many agreements are going to need to G be managed?  That isn't just the paper contracts, but also the software = configuration databased used to keep those.  That's 1,000,000  agreements to be executed.  J > > Okay, your zombied PC is invovled in a spam run.  Are you going to payB > > the $1,000 fine?  A 0-day exploit is found in your system, andJ > > overnight you send out 1,000,000 spams.  You get the bill.  Do you pay > > it?  > E > If you signed a contract, do you have a choice?  Of course, you are C > free to seek redress from the person who infected your PC, but it 7 > doesn't excuse you from your contractual obligations.   B Would you (Bill Gunshannon) pay that bill if your PC got infected?  Y >                                                                           To be honest, C > I don't see it happening.  The entire architecture of my proposed I > network would stand in the way.  All of these attacks you keep bringing H > up rely on one thing in particular and that is the fact that under theF > current email architecture on the INTERENT any machinecan send emailF > to any other machine.  Some of them blindly accept email from any ofF > these random machines.  That is the major flaw in the system and one2 > that is the first thing my proposal gets rid of.  D Not at all.  You keep talking about server-to-server peering, but atF some point a user at a PC is going to need to send a message over your! network.  It is an attack vector.   D > > I can only hope.  Maybe Linux, since there seems to be much moreJ > > security and less abuse of Linux systems out there.  I've only had twoK > > times ever where a Linux box on my network has been exploited (and even K > > then, the exposure was limited) - one by a XML PHP script one a friends K > > web server (which the fix are readily available) and a SSL V2 flaw many  > > years ago. > G > But, regardless of the OS involved, the major flaw still exists.  Any I > machine can send email to any other machine.  And, add to that how easy J > it is to spoof identitiy under SMTP and the problem still exists.  It is/ > these two fatal flaws that I eliminate first.   C If your idea spreads, the PC becomes a prefered attack vector, just A like SMTP is today.  It doesn't protect the server from the user. G After all, at some point someone sitting at the PC has to click "send", E and expects something to happen.  The only "flaw" you've addressed it > MTA->MTA, but that's only part of the requirements for a fully functioning mail suite.   F > > You don't see it, do you?  The COMPANY missed a service pack/virusE > > update.  The USERS data was on the COMPANY's computer.  Jury will G > > probably award large damages.  Company will review putting critical ( > > data on MS software, as will others. > L > MS has been in court before.  The courts chose to punish them by extendingG > their reach.  All of these problems are already well known.  HIPPA is G > probably the biggest data protection responsibility  with the biggest G > teeth.  And yet, hospitals are rushing headlong into putting more and G > more of their infrastructure on PC's running MS software.  Go figure.   G That's why I'm waiting the class-action against the Company (they won't A go after MS, they will go after the company that got comproised).   H > > Exactly.  Pandora's box has been openned.  Things that worked in theJ > > good old days just don't apply anymore and/or don't scale well.  AfterE > > all, that's why DNS was born, since even in the early DARPA days, 5 > > propogating a /etc/hosts wasn't feasible anymore.  > F > Which doesn't change under my proposal.  We still run DNS.  We stillG > connect accross the INTERNET.  We just don't use SMTP for our serious G > email.  Many people today agree that while it may have been nice when F > it first came out it was not a well designed protocol and doesn't doG > the job well.  So then, why are we still using it?  Inertia?  Why not I > start a different system in paralel and let things continue to develop? G > Maybe after seeing what happens between the two systems we might find I > that there is a third, as yet un-designed, system that is the long-term 	 > winner.   C Okay, then I will suggest that for your solution to succeed, at the E MINIMUM you will need buy-in from Microsoft.  You will need PC client E software and server software available built-in/enhance existing SMTP 7 servers.  Do you think this is an incorrect suggestion?   % There is going to be lots of inertia.     F > > Society has scammers, cons, thieves, and more.  D/ARPANET wasn't aK > > target since there wasn't enough volume to be worth it.  Now instead of D > > thousands of people, it's millions of people.  Not just researchD > > scientists and Computer Science students.  It's kids, grandma's,A > > executives, homeless - and the best and worst of all of them.  > L > Yeah, it's kind of like the difference between city life and country life.# > Now, there's a social difference.   G No, it more like a gated community.  Keeps out the bad guys.  Often, it E keeps out your friends, too.  They just can stop by for a vist nearly 
 as easily.  J > > Not just the volume, but the target-rich environment.  How many peopleK > > used to have e-mail 20 years ago?  FAXes where the big thing back then. A > >  But they had a "spamming" problem of their own, didn't they? F > > Something the Telecommunication Protection Act of 1991 had to helpG > > solve.  Well, it didn't so much, since the FCC had many forfeitures H > > even as lately as a few of years ago with fax.com and American Blast > > Fax. > > 1 > > Same scum, just adapting to newer technology.  > K > Granted, but I am not willing to just throw up my hands and say, "OK, the  > spammers win!"  F True, but your system burdens the mail admin heavily and make them the3 central point of focus for each users address book.   K > > But as I've mentioned, you can't stop the "point of origin" due to much H > > of the fraud and unauthorized use of zombied PC's, open proxies, and/ > > various software exploits curerntly in use.  > I > But, again, those attacks all rely on the two fatal flaws of SMTP.  The J > ability of any machine to connect to any other machine for the excahnageJ > of mail (this one coupled to the willingness of most machines to blindlyH > accept it) and the ability under SMTP to spoof your identity.  Neither5 > of which will be possible under my proposed system.   E Why?  So far all you've addressed is MTA->MTA, where's the MUA fit in  and how is it unexploitable?  J > >                                              Since often, the ReceivedF > > header you track either is fradulent, or only gets you back to theB > > exploited system - not back the the actual spammer in control. > D > Actually, I have yet to receive any email message that I could not4 > identify the actual IP Address of the real sender.  F No, you can only trace it back to the last Received header of the SMTPF dialog.  You have no real idea of how the message got to that system -D actual user or injected through a trojan proxy or other exploit.  IfE you believe that the Recieved headers take you completely back to the ? true original origin, you haven't really seen what spammers do.   K > > The problem is oh-so-much bigger than just getting Ma Kettle to sign an G > > AUP saying she won't spam.  She won't, but that doesn't mean her PC 0 > > won't be an unwitting accomplice to the act. > I > One:  That is between her and her ISP.  If the ISP cares they will take H > a more proactive role in preventing it.  (Hint:  I run a lot's of PC'sI > that are open to all our students.  While the University constantly has G > doezens of infected PC's in its labs, I hve not had an infected PC in + > any of my labs since the Windows98 days.) J > Two:  If the ISP is not interested, fine, they don't join my network andH > are free to stay out there on the INTERNET with an email to spam ratio > of 2%/98%.  A Then I think I can safely say that this is exactly what they will F probably do.  Why is someone sending you an e-mail worth getting their: legal department involved negotiating a peering agreement?    F > > No, you didn't mention that.  So how do you get the whole world to > > switch to your protocol, > E > Actually, I have mentioned it numerous times.  I don't give a rat's B > patootie about the whole world, only those who are interested inD > making Email useful again.  It's not my protocol. It's been aroundI > for a couple decades and is supported by lots of boxes as well. (Pretty E > much any UNIX system and ther eused to be versions for VMS as well, G > but like much other software, I can't really say that the VMS version  > kept up.)  It's called UUCP.  E You're kidding right?  I've run UUCP for years before I got internet,  and it's not a mail protocol.   E > >                          and why is it unable to be exploited any  > > differently than SMTP has? > J > Because, it lacks two of the basic flaws of SMTP.  The ability of randomJ > machines to connect to anyone else and the ability to spoof who you are.  G Wrong - UUCP is only a point-to-point file transfer protocol.  It would C not be difficult for forge an e-mail to a UUCP host and cause it to C forward it.  Authentication is done via a clear-text password file,  too.  F > > Read the news.  An owner of a bot-net recently got some jail time. > G > What did he go to jail for?  I'll bet it wasn't spamming but probably  > something like fraud.    No, I think it was spamming.  E > >                                           And exactly how does my H > > email get from my server to your server when whatever paper work you9 > > require is done?  And how is it not subject to abuse?  > I > Accross the INTERNET the same way it does now.  Only using UUCP instead G > of SMTP.  It might surprise you to find out that most of the existing & > MTA's can still deal with UUCP.  :-)  C Yes, by accepting mail via SMTP (or sendmail if you are on a telnet C session) and then routing them over UUCP.  UUCP (Unix-to-Unix CoPy) F isn't a mail protocol.  You still haven't fixed mail, just essentiallyD swapped TCP for UUCP between servers but the SMTP injection point is still vulnerable. G Also, due to smart-hosting, once you can inject a message into one UUCP D server, the "trust" network will enable you to spam the entire trust network.  H > > Part of the problem of your solution is that it requires cooperation3 > > from a rather large number of ISP's and admins,  > D > No, only those who want to see Email become useful for their usersB > again.  the rest are free to stay with what they currently have.A > When USENET first came into existence it was just AT&T machines @ > exchanging email.  It had a number of serious limitations.  ItH > used the phone system as it's transport.  That meant it was expensive.G > More so depending on distance.  So it had to do most of its moving at H > night. This meant time.  A message could take several days to get fromI > source to destination.  And still it grew.  Eventually, hubs showed up. J > Machines like seismo and others and eventually, UUNET.  This sped thingsG > up a bit but it still required mostly waiting until nighttime to move H > messages.  And still, it grew.  This was probably its biggest drawbackK > and the one it no longer has as it can use the INTERNET for its transport 	 > medium.   G The biggest problem what that the routing of Usenet (compiling the UUCP = MAPS from Rutgers) was a royal pain in order to determine the C routeability from one node to another.  it just doesn't scale well.   I > It is not necessary for there to be a mass movement right up front.  It K > can easily co-exist with the current system and be allowed to grow on its & > own.  Let's look at one possibility.  @ They did.  I ran one.  That kind of 1-1 peering arrangement just doesn't scale.  F > We here in c.o.v are a rather well-kniit community.  So, we set up aE > network that involves us.  Most of us would likely trust each other E > making the agreement between us much easier.  Now, we can all agree B > to exchange email with everyone else, or we can have a couple ofD > people (like Island and Montagar just for example) volunteer to beH > hubs.  The hubs set up their UUCP to accept email from the mailserversI > of the otehr members of the c.o.v community.  So, emails between any of G > us goes to one of the hubs and then to the destination mailhost.  Two F > hops and probably gets there just as fast it would under the currentH > system.  Now, I'm a University.  Because of academic interests I startH > getting agreements with other schools.  Some of the big ones might optF > to be hubs (heck even I can do that!!).  Same thing as we had in theH > c.o.v community.  But wait, now the c.o.v community also has a cleanerG > way to exchange email with all the Universities that sign on.  And so ' > it grows.  At least in my dream.  :-)   D Well, first I need to get UUCP software that TCP/IP SMTP can talk toC for Alpha or Integrity.  Until then, I   don't have the software to  participate.  E > >                                                  several software  > > developers,  >  > What software developers?   8 Windows version of UUCP?  VMS version of UUCP?  Or are y  G But here's a big point.  In another post you mention how all these mail D admins can't fix mal-configured mail servers, get off RBL lists, fixD their users problems even when YOU provide the solution.  So I see aF problem where this pool of mail admins is also the some one you expect> to contact you to negotiate peering agreements and update UUCP< configurations to implement this.  These same people, right?  C I mean, that is part of the social problem to begin with, isn't it?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:46:55 -0500 - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> @ Subject: JPEG 6B for OpenVMS Alpha 8.2 - GNV style shared image.; Message-ID: <zemdnZU9M88SqPfYnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@adelphia.com>   I This is packaging of JPEG or LIBJPEG, built for use with GNV based build  ) environments, and packaged in a PCSI kit.   I This library was built with _LARGEFILE support, and exact case universal  ) symbols in addition to uppercase symbols.    The source is from:      http://www.ijg.org/   ' A large number of programs use libjpeg.    Currently this package is at:   Q http://encompasserve.org/~malmberg/GNV/JEM-AXPVMS-JPEG-V0600-0B-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: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:27:01 -0600 3 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.no@spam.comcast.net> # Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues 0 Message-ID: <456A30D5.23CC1E55@spam.comcast.net>   JF Mezei wrote:  >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  > S > > ..., or, stated more succinctly, it is not the customer's job to fix a vendor's  > > broken systems.  > F > I agree in principle. However, here we have an HP employee sincerelyL > wanting to help fix the internal problems and asking the VMS community for2 > some ammunition to help her move some mountains. > L > In that context, it is not much to ask the VMS community to do a bit extraM > and log the call numbers and report back to Sue where there is bad service.  > J > Is Sue goes to management and says that people on C.O.V. are complainingK > about support quality , but she cannot provide any concrete examples, how L > seriously do you think her statements will be taken ? Consider that C.O.V.F > is often seen as "complain.OS.VMS" by certain key management people.  M As a wife(, significant other, etc.) might be quick to point out (albeit in a  round-about way):    1. Service is o.k.# 2. Service changed - no longer o.k.   C The fix? Undo the change (or, "uninstall", in Whinebloze parlance).   H Making changes implies, however tacitly, accepting reponsibility for theO fall-out from those changes, not pushing it off onto those most impacted by the  change.   M That said, understand: I *AM* willing to help out Sue and anyone else from HP M who is *GENUINELY* interested in "fixing the breakage" and is EMPOWERED to do O so. That means waiting for the opportunity to participate in the investiagtion, $ even if it's inconvenient to do so.   P By "participate", I mean that HP resources and I will go through the exercise ofH logging a call representing a current customer issue. I will provide theL customer's part, the HP folks will listen and take their own notes. Once theM call has been logged, we will confer, compare notes, and examine what worked, , what didn't and the hows and whys of it all.  I Of course, that's the easy part. (Yes, I'm a big believer in the power of 
 eye-witness.)   P The "hard" part is taking what didn't work back to the conference rooms, etc. ofC HP, hammering out the needed fixes, then planning and executing the  implementation(s).  J Getting HP's buy-in on "the 'hard' part" is likely to present the greatest challenge by far.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:37:57 -0600 3 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.no@spam.comcast.net> # Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues 0 Message-ID: <456A3365.92DE9111@spam.comcast.net>   "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:  >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  >  > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:  > >  > >>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. > <snip>Q > > Unless "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality purposes" is total Q > > B.S., the needed mechanisms should already be in place - they just need to be R > > exercised more vigorously and extensively with the results being reviewed moreQ > > thoroughly and critically, with an ear geared toward the customer's paradigm.  > >  > H > Let my rephrase that.  If you want Sue to try to do anything about it,: > you need to provide the documentation she has requested.  F As I mentioned to other posters, I can't "change the past" and produce7 data/documentation that was not collected in real time.   N We need a procedure for "monitoring and recording" support calls that actually produces some positive results.   I > Sure, Hopelessly Pathetic should fix their own systems without any help I > from us and, if you want to wait for that to happen, fine!   I wouldn't  > want to hold my breath!!!!!   M Rest assured, no else is, either! See my other posts about my site losing VMS  and migrating to AIX.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Nov 2006 18:03:49 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com># Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues C Message-ID: <1164593029.076609.149720@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>    David J Dachtera wrote:  > AEF wrote: > >   > > [duplicated section omitted] > > > > David J Dachtera wrote:  > > > > > Sue wrote:	 > > > > > M > > > > >>I have requested information that I can take to management to prove K > > > > >>that there is an issue and as of yet I have not received one mail Q > > > > >>message detaling the issues at hand.  Granted it is much easier to talk @ > > > > >>about how bad the problem is but fixing it takes work.	 > > > > > 	 > > > > > W > > > > > We tend to focus on addressing the issue which caused the support call first. U > > > > > We've tended not to document the progress of support calls. It is generally Z > > > > > assumed that the call tracking system does this on its own, without the customerX > > > > > needing to take specific action (who received the call, at what time, the timeV > > > > > at which the called was transferred to the next person, if/when the customerY > > > > > called back, who received the call, how long did that conversation last, etc.). W > > > > > This impression comes from the message one hears when placing the call: "This B > > > > > call may be monitored or recorded for quality purposes." > > > D > > > > There is nothing that Sue or anyone else can do without someK > > > > documentation; if you want something done, you need to provide that P > > > > documentation!  In the absence of documentation one is inclined to thinkO > > > > that some people would rather have something to complain about than get  > > > > something fixed. > > > 	 > > > > > @ > > > > > Perhaps more recording/monitoring needs to take place. > > > U > > > ..., or, stated more succinctly, it is not the customer's job to fix a vendor's Q > > > broken systems. That onus falls squarely on the vendor. In fact, the vendor V > > > should be making its money by contractimng to fix the customer's broken systems,R > > > not the other way around. If a customer has to go to such lengths because ofT > > > changes within a vendor's organization, it may be time for the customer to cutU > > > its losses and find a more responsive, "customer focused"* vendor. (*: Remember ( > > > that phrase from not so long ago?) > > H > > Yes, we shouldn't have to help the vendor fix his problems. But it'sJ > > more our problem than theirs. Life is full of "we shouldn't have tos",K > > but sometimes, you do it anyway, if you want it fixed. Sue is trying to " > > help. Let us help her help us. > P > Think you can sell my management on the idea of them paying me to work for HP?  E Do you tell your management about support calls needed to fix things? E If there was a problem with support, do you inform management? If you   can tell them, you can tell Sue.  C If there are past problems that you have no detailed records of, or : cannot recall in sufficient detail for this purpose, fine.   > , > > This reminds me of Jason Alexander's oldI > > show (Bob Patterson Show[?]) which posted an ad saying, "Help me help F > > you help me help you." &-) (Well, it reminds me of the ad, not the > > show, which I never saw.)  > >  > > > S > > > Unless "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality purposes" is total S > > > B.S., the needed mechanisms should already be in place - they just need to be T > > > exercised more vigorously and extensively with the results being reviewed moreS > > > thoroughly and critically, with an ear geared toward the customer's paradigm.  > > E > > Perhaps they're just trying to make sure the support people don't F > > verbally abuse the customers, or lie to the customer, or forget toI > > mention the ink cartridge special of the week (just kidding), etc. It ? > > all comes down to "What do you mean by 'quality control'?".  > P > At this point, I would say it would, by definiton, have to include the ability8 > to detect issues before they end up in the trade rags.  D That's your definition. Quite reasonable, but apparently not what HP has in mind.   >  > -- > David J Dachtera > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/ [...]  AEF    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Nov 2006 20:03:22 -0800< From: "Hein RMS van den Heuvel" <heinvandenheuvel@gmail.com>6 Subject: Re: Oracle 9i and VMS multihome configurationC Message-ID: <1164600202.144240.167270@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>    Malcolm Dunnett wrote:6 > "DaveG" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> wrote in message> > news:1164382192.355000.183780@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...% > >> What kind of problem do you see?  > > I > >Original IP address connection is fine, second IP address seems not to > > >be working with Oracle, I'm told by our application people. > >  > J >   You would need to modify LISTENER.ORA (in ORACLE_HOME:[NETWORK.ADMIN])) > to tell it about the second IP address.  > G >    I've not actually done this for two IP addresses, but it should go  > something like this. Your   > original entry will look like: >  > LISTENER = (ADDRESS_LIST=  >         (ADDRESS = >           (PROTOCOL = TCP)$ >           (HOST = myhost.mydomain) >           (PORT=1521)  >           (QUEUESIZE=200)  >         )  >   )  > D > You need to add another address block, so it looks something like: >  > LISTENER = (ADDRESS_LIST=  >         (ADDRESS = >           (PROTOCOL = TCP)$ >           (HOST = myhost.mydomain) >           (PORT=1521)  >           (QUEUESIZE=200)  >         )  >         (ADDRESS = >           (PROTOCOL = TCP)% >           (HOST = myhost1.mydomain)  >           (PORT=1521)  >           (QUEUESIZE=200)  >         )  >   )     " Dave also posted this question in:L http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1078568G However, service has been erratic there this weekend, supposedly due to + re-indexing for search engine improvements.   C Malcolm may well be right in his suggested solution but I think you D need two activated listener. To get that modify listener.ora to read something like:    LISTENER = (ADDRESS_LIST=           (ADDRESS =             (PROTOCOL = TCP) #            (HOST = myhost.mydomain)             (PORT=1521)            (QUEUESIZE=200)
          ) )    LISTENER2 =  (ADDRESS =             (PROTOCOL = TCP) $            (HOST = myhost2.mydomain)            (PORT=1521)            (QUEUESIZE=200)
          ) )    You would then issue  ! $lsntctl start LISTENER  !Default  $lsntctl start LISTENER2  0 http://www.samoratech.com/swmultiplelistener.htm  
 Good luck, Hein.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:45:26 -0600 2 From: pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter)= Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC : Message-ID: <BZydnQ7HxdT78PfYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com>  / In article <ek6a0c$hl1$00$1@news.t-online.com>, * MIchael Kraemer  <M.Kraemer@gsi.de> wrote: >William Pechter schrieb:  >>  H >> Unless you ran AT&T Unix boxes and needed TCP/IP which was extra from >> Lachman or whomever...  >>  G >> The 3B series charged $$$ for TCP/IP.  As did Concurrent's OS/32 and 	 >> Xelos.  >>  I >> The only folks who charged $0 for TCP/IP connectivity were workstation 8 >> users who got their start with the BSD distributions. >  >and that was when ? 197x ? ? >All major, economically relevant Unices have network (and gfx) 5 >as integral part of the OS since at least the 1990s.    Actually around 1987...     3 Major and economically relevant since the 1990's... & Small list of Unix vendors since then.  F Let's see... we're down to about...7 (I guess the smaller ones weren't "economically relevant."  G SCO, SUN, IBM, HP-UX, DEC, DG and NCR (maybe).  (NCR charged for TCP/IP  IIRC)    Bill --   --  <   "When I think back on all the crap I learned in Vax schoolG   It's a wonder I fixed anything at all."   (to the tune of Kodachrome)    pechter-at-ureach.com    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.652 ************************