1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 27 Nov 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 653       Contents:. Re: A place where non-mention of VMS is good !P Re: Annoying screen noise when scrolling on a DECterm (XP1000, Radeon7500, VMS 7P Re: Annoying screen noise when scrolling on a DECterm (XP1000, Radeon7500, VMS 7 Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3) , Re: increase in spam and what to do about it, Re: increase in spam and what to do about it$ Re: Is HP trying to kill VMS again ? Re: Mouse: thumbwheel support " Re: OpenVMS and Windows on Itanium Re: OpenVMS Clustering Question  Re: OpenVMS Clustering Question  Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: OpenVMS Support Issues Re: optimal drives for HSG80; Re: Re[2]: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC ; Re: Re[2]: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC - Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales - Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales 4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 RE: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC4 Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC2 Re: Using SYS$INPUT for input into an FTP command. RE: VMS in The DA   Re: volume shadowing over LAVC ?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:59:43 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>7 Subject: Re: A place where non-mention of VMS is good ! ) Message-ID: <ekeuh1$173v$2@pyrite.mv.net>    Bob Koehler wrote:t > In article <1164270742.359442.234880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Beach Runner" <Bob4Health@hotmail.com> writes: >>E >> As much as I love VMS, it is the least secure OS out there at this  >> time.F >> User names and Pass words are STILL to this day sent in plain text. >>H >    Sent?  Sent where?  I access all my VMS systems via SSH, so they'reI >    encrypted, or at a direct connection where I have physical security. = >    When I'm already on VMS, I access other systems via ssh.  >  >    You're just out of touch. >     D    The original poster is likely referring to LAN traffic involving G DECnet or (unencrypted IP), or to cluster SCS traffic.  LAN traffic is  G still sensitive, and it's not encrypted using standard configurations.  ! If you can sniff the local LAN...    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:08:58 GMT # From: "FredK" <fred@nospam.dec.com> Y Subject: Re: Annoying screen noise when scrolling on a DECterm (XP1000, Radeon7500, VMS 7 1 Message-ID: <ecDah.2826$q86.526@news.cpqcorp.net>   / "H Vlems" <hvlems@freenet.de> wrote in message  . news:4568125a$0$4669$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl... > 1 > <petros.dafniotis@gmail.com> schreef in bericht > > news:1164406225.723457.155220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...0 >> I would appreciate your help or tips on this. >>A >> Basically when scrolling (either within the TPU editor or just J >> executing a DCL command that produces lots of output) I get an annoyingJ >> screen noise to the right of the DECterm. This is totally reproducible.I >> I am running VMS 7.3-2 with Graphics V4.00 installed; should I upgrade  >> to 8.2 or 8.3?  >> >> Details: B >> XP1000 (667 MHz), 1.5GB RAM, VMS 7.3-2, Club3D Radeon 7500 card8 >> running on a Compaq P1100 monitor at 1600x1200 @85Hz. >>, >> Thank you for reading this. Kind regards,	 >> Petros  >>	 > Petros, L > what happens if you scale down to 1280x1024 at 85 Hz, or stay at 1600x1200L > but reduce the refresh rate to 75 or 72 Hz? (or go higher if the equipment > can handle that) >  > Hans >  >   K With very high screen resolutions and refresh rates, it is possible to see  K screen noise.  Two possible reasons - the first is to make sure you have a  M very-high quality video cable and monitor.  The second is that the memory in  J todays graphics cards is not dual ported VRAM, but ordinary DRAM.  So the K card has to divide DRAM access time between the RAMDAC (which is trying to  J read the data out) and the graphics engine (which is trying to read/write I the DRAM).  Graphics operations that take a long time to complete or are  K completely DRAM bound in time (like a screen-to-screen copy - i.e. scroll)  E can end up stepping on the RAMDAC timeslice and cause video glitches.   H Lastly, I don't know what a "Club3D" version of the Radeon 7500 is - so K there is no way to know how it compares with the Radeon 7500 that HP sells  ; (in terms of the amount and speed of the DRAM for example).   L As Hans said - the simple way to reduce this, is to reduce the refresh rate I so that the RAMDAC isn't asking for data too often.  In general, 70Hz is  I high enough to eliminate things like beat frequencies with lights.  85Hz  B seems overkill for most people - even those with sensitive vision.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:54:40 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>Y Subject: Re: Annoying screen noise when scrolling on a DECterm (XP1000, Radeon7500, VMS 7 ) Message-ID: <ekeu7l$173v$1@pyrite.mv.net>   ! petros.dafniotis@gmail.com wrote:   
 > Details:A > XP1000 (667 MHz), 1.5GB RAM, VMS 7.3-2, Club3D Radeon 7500 card 7 > running on a Compaq P1100 monitor at 1600x1200 @85Hz.   I    If you're not over-driving the monitor, that whistle would imply your  D monitor is probably failing.  As others have commented, drop the Hz ; down, or the Hz and the resolution, and see if it cures it.   G    In finest field service fashion, here's  the sequence I would use...       - Lower the refresh rate.      - Lower the resolution.      - Swap cable.      - Swap monitor.      - Swap graphics controller.  H    While 60 Hz CRT flickers for me, anything above 72 or 75 Hz doesn't. I   Accordingly, I tend not to go above that rate as there's no point (for  H me) in going to (for instance) 85 Hz.  For whatever reason, I don't see . the same flicker out of LCDs -- even at 60 Hz.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:29:29 GMT ' From: ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> & Subject: Re: DECW$SERVER crashes (8.3)8 Message-ID: <tvDah.55803$163.54691@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>   FredK wrote:= > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message  3 > news:65f1e$45662aea$cef8887a$4606@TEKSAVVY.COM...  > M > Granted, Mozilla is probably giving the X server a much bigger workout than G > any app on VAX. But still, I would expect Mozilla to crash, not the X 7 > server (bringing down all other apps in the process).  >   F Netscape Alpha for Tru64 had horrendous memory leaks. If you leave it I running long enough, it eventually runs the system out memory *and* swap  G space. It wasn't an X or other system problem, both of which were rock   solid otherwise...   Chris  ...    ------------------------------   Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:01:49 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it 0 Message-ID: <4t0gfdF11m65qU1@mid.individual.net>  C In article <1164591391.999832.173820@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,  	davidc@montagar.com writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:E >> In article <1164427612.373176.124490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,  >> 	davidc@montagar.com writes:  >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >> >J >> > And I guess I'm still not sure exactly how your method is to actuallyB >> > work, and how all these agreements are executed and enforced. >>A >> The agreements are executed by tou asking me to exchange email > >> with you and my agreeing to do so.  Enforced?  It can be asA >> formal or as informal as the two parties want it to be.  If it A >> were me and you I would likely opt for a gentlemans agreement. A >> 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 A >> 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 nothingB >> really new or inovative in what I am proposing, only in the way >> I see it being implemented. > H > See, already you have a wide variety of "procedures" from handshake toH > more from every mailhost which with you want to communicate.  That's aG > lot of agreements to manage, and for companies, you can bet the legal F > departments are going to get involved.  Once you go to "agreements",H > especially as you want them to be "legally binding" and have financialF > penalties, the corporate mavens are going to start to have problems.* > Even most educational institutions, too.  B Funny, I have to have all kinds of different "agreements" now.  OrD do you think that INRIA uses the MS boilerplate for their licenses? D Basicly, the admins (and their organizations) are free to do as theyE please.  For me, I really see only two different agreements.  One for E those I know well enough to trust and another for those I know enough  not to trust.  :-)   > G > Usenet may or may not require an agreement to peer with them, but you I > are also talking about 1 specific protocol, and that argeement does not D > cover, nor does it assure you of a spamless feed, due to all otherH > hosts that contribute as part of the Usenet "feed".  It is a broadcastF > 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 6 > attractiveness as a spam method long before e-mail).  D And yet, I see much less spam from Usenet than from Email lately.  IG saw not one spam message over this entire weekend while seeing probably H a thousand messages (no, I don't read all of them beyond maybe the firstE line or two.)  During the same period I received over 150 messages on H one account and 5 on another.  The first had 2 real messages and all theH rest was spam.  The second, was 1 real and 4 spam.  Sure seems like time to do something about it!!   > E >> > I would at least venture that it hasn't been accepted yet, then?  >>I >> Well, being as it's still just an idea and hasn't been proposed yet...  > H > One of the biggest setbacks I see in your proposal is that traditionalE > SMTP is still advantagous, since you may or may not have sufficient  > "agreements" in place.  F And, in case you missed it, I don't supplant it.  My proposal would beG to start using the new method and hope that over time all of the people C with whom communications are important also have or get accounts on D systems that are part of the system thus allowing use of the currentC system to fade into obscurity.  You can continue to receive the old E fashioned email, but you will soon be free to very agressively filter B it, hoipefully eliminating the garbage while relying on your clean/ email feed for the email that really matters.      > C >> > Agreed, even AOL has had lots of complains about it's plans to J >> > implement something like this.  How do you punish the abusers withoutL >> > inflicting punishment or worse on the vast majority of people who don't >> > abuse it? >>J >> By making the users (at least the one's you don't trust) sign a legallyJ >> binding contract that has the ability to impose real penalties on those >> who violate it. > H > Okay, but as soon as you do that "at least the one's you don't trust",$ > you open yourself up to a lawsuit.  E No I don't.  I am free to have whatever agreements I want with anyone E I want.  As long as I don't discriminate based on one of the specific D catagories under law.  Last I checked, being a spammer wasn't one ofF them.  Or are you saying that all businesse treat everyone exactly theH same way?  Ever been to hardware store at the same time as a contractor?E Funny, really, he doesn't pay the same price I pay for anything.  So, H should I sue?  That's the way contract law works.  I can't force someoneG to sign the contract, but then, if they don't, I don't have to exchange  email with them.   > L >> > Back in the mid '90's, such things were done.  Erols and other networksL >> > had fines and such for spammers.  It didn't work.  This again referrersH >> > to the "whack-a-mole" game of spammer termination.  Also, often theL >> > 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 areH > generally so low that there is little chance of getting it prosecuted.A > These are the people you are trying to require "agreements" and F > "contracts" - essentially criminals.  They would sign your agreementI > and then use it to line their bird cage before starting their next spam D > run.  By the time you find out, they're done and have disappeared.  E How does a man who put his signatutre on the bottom line "disappear"? E They get away with it now because so many places are willing to allow F what is basicly anonymous access to their machines. This is one of the first things that needs to go.   > F > Read and look at many of the things spammers have done in the past -A > violationed AUP's, credit card fraud, phishing, trojan bot-nets C > (SpamThru as one of the latest), and more.  That's what I've been # > trying to underscore to you here.   D All of which only works because of the nature of the current system, 1, Anonymous access is allowed. C 2. Protocol allows anyone, anywhere to connect ot anyone, anywhere. I 3. Protocol allows for easy address spoofing which only adds to 1. above.    > G >> If you make the users identify themselves and sign a legally binding F >> contract you know who they are and they can't have 10 more accounts >> waiting.  > H > Exactly how do you do that?  And how do you know they are using forged7 > documents/identity they've phished from someone else?   F How do you know that anyone you deal with on any given day is who theyI say they are?  I don't think three are as many people running around with H forged documents as you seem to.  They do what they do becasue under theH current system they are never required to present any proof if identity.I They log onto YAHOO and create email accounts.  This is one of the things  I want to see stopped.   > F >> And, because my proposal doesn't use SMTP at all, none of the above >> pose a threat.  > I > A description of that protocol would be nice.  Who's going to implement I > it?  What vendors are going to back it?  What client software will work 
 > with it?  F As I have said in the past (and you have mentioned at least once, so II assume you saw it) it's UUCP with TCPIP as the transport medium.  Already F implemented and available on ltos of systems.  Used to be available on VMS, not sure if it still is.    > L >> > Also, how do you require uniform AUP's across ISP of various countries? >>J >> It is all based on agreements between individuals.  Regardless of whereH >> one is I can require whatever I want or refuse to let them play in my >> sandbox.  > D > And why would they alter their policies to fit your needs?  Is theH > effort and dealing with their legal department worth the effort for an > email?  B Look at the state of thigs right now.  Then read some of the tradeA journals you pointed out to me.  Look at what I said about what I D got over the weekend.  And I use a number of RBL's on my mailserver.@ And, there are entire blocks of foreign IP address blocks that I? do not even allow to connect to my mailserver.  And those trade @ journals say it is going to get much, much worse.  At what pointC does email become unusable for anything serious?  Stopping this and E returning the medium to its previous usefulness seems worth the small C effort it will take.  Especially when one consider the effort it is + already taking to try and deal with it now.    > E >> > Yes, but they really have no teeth, the spammers are often using  >> > fraudulent information, >>I >> If I don't know/trust the individual, I require them to prove who they K >> are.  How is that any different than when someone walks into a store and H >> plops a credit card down?  Fraud is illegal.  As near as I know, that2 >> applies in pretty much every civilized country. > H > Spammer often operate illegally.  Many of the techniques that spammersH > use are marginally to explicitly illegal - yet they persist.  What youI > are proposing assumes they aren't.  From what I see, that is one of the E > biggest problems with your proposal.  You assume honesty, much like  > Usenet of old.  G Not really, the methods primarily in use today rely on the three things F I have mentioned before.  The biggest thing they rely on is anonymity.   >  >>C >> >                         or on ISP which don't have strong AUP,  >>I >> I don't let them join the network until they agree to institute an AUP - >> that meets the requirements of my network.  > G > And what level of effort does that take?  You'll see where I'm coming  > from on that point later...   G Probably depends on the size and political make up of the organization. E My University already has an AUP which the students all agree to obey F by virtue of being students here.  Students have been disciplined (andA in at least one case expelled) for violating it.  It would not be C particularly difficult to get explicit mention of spamming int here F although in a round about way, it already is.  The worst case would beD most of the existing ISP's who probably would not be interested.  OfG course, this just opens the door for some entrepreneur to start a clean G email system and offer accounts.  I pay for my news reader service now. D What I pay is trivial.  However on the other end, it turns out to beG rather profitable as they have a rather large subscriber base.  I could  live off of what they make.    > I >> > You are assuming the spammers are Law Abiding Honest Citizens.  That 8 >> > may be true of Usenet back in the day, not anymore. >>E >> In order to join the nework, they will have to positively identify A >> themselves.  If they choose to violate the law after they have E >> positively identified themselves, well, that's what the courts are  >> for.  :-) > F > Good luck getting it prosecuted, though.  Really.  They find out whoC > you peer with and get an account  with them, say, AOL.  Then spam I > through AOL.  Wouldn't be the first time AOL had that happen.  Probably F > not the last.  Then you either terminate exchange with AOL or put upC > with AOL playing whack-a-mole on a daily basis.  Which do you do?   E Well, I would probably not peer with AOL in the first place.  I don't G (personally) accept any email from them now.  Anyone who peered with me E would have to understand they are responsible to ensure the behaviour I of their users.  I am sure there many who would not want to.  See comment E above.  How many people posting here have Gmail accounts?  The use of I an account other than that provided by their ISP is really rather common.    > J >> > Sure they did.  It just didn't stop the spammers.  Because they don't
 >> > care. >>H >> You can't posibly tell me that a spammer is going to continue to spamG >> if he has been positively identified and faces penalties of hundreds 4 >> of thousands (or more) dollars for his violation. > ? > YES.  Because they will use fradulent identities to avoid the F > penalties.  Prosecuting that is not as trivial as you think, anymore  > than credit card fraud is now.  C See my comments above about anonymity and the need to eliminate it.    > H >> The reason they don't care now is because in most cases they can't beL >> identified.  This anonymity would be the first thing to go in my network. > H > Good luck.  Unless each INDIVIDUAL is known to you, how can you verifyG > the true authorship of any mail from someone who may be coming from a  > trusted host?   E Not my responsibility.  It is the responsibility of the mailserver to E police its users.  I can do that with mine and I expect that everyone D else can as well.  Some will choose not to. they will not be allowed to play.   > < >> > But how does that help when there are those that don't? >>F >> It helps me and those who do.  Those who don't are free to continueB >> along the path they are on until Email becomes totally useless. > H > Or yuo determine that you simply cannot completely trust anyone, or so- > few that, that your solution doesn't scale.   C Pretty cynical.  I thought that was my ballywick.  I expect I could E trust most real .edu's.  I think I could trust lots of people here in C c.o.v.  I'll bet I could trust most serious .com's.  About the only F people I think I could not trust are most current ISP's and the places9 that currently offer free email accounts on the INTERNET.    > B >> > What if you get hit with a fine because your PC got trojaned? >>I >> You keep missing one big point.  There are no PC's sending email on my H >> network.  It isn't using SMTP and all the current attacks won't work.I >> Or, perhaps you mean hit with a fine by your ISP, well, that's between I >> you and your ISP.  It will be in the best interests of the ISP to take F >> a more proactive role in keeping their customers PC's clean.  Right4 >> now, they don't care because there is no penalty. > F > Do you want to be the ISP that sues a grandmother on a fixed pensionH > for several thousand dollars because her PC got hijacked?  How long do' > you think you would stay in business?   G Believe it or not, the ISP has the ability to prevent that hijacking in E a majority of cases.  they choose not to because they don't see it as D their problem.  Putting them in a position where it is in their bestE interests to be more proactive would be good for the entire INTERNET. C But, again, as I just said above, I would not trust the ISP's and I B expect they would opt not to sign such an agreement.  That's fine, they don't play.   > K >> >                                                                Are you K >> > going to quietly pay the fine, or are you fight it because you weren't  >> > the one sending the spam. >>J >> Umm...  If it's your PC, you are the one sending the spam.  If you signJ >> a contract and then violate it, I really think the courts are not goingL >> to have much pity.  That might make PC users more carefull.  But the mainL >> thing to remember, is that it is not really the unwashed masses that willJ >> be interested in this.  It is people like you and me that actually wantI >> email to be usable for serious communications.  The majority of todays H >> users will stay on the standard INTERNET Email system and continue toJ >> send their chain-letters and jokes.  And those who take Email seriouslyI >> can exchange their serious email on the new network with others of the G >> same ilk while agressively filtering and blocking the INTERNET email 
 >> system. > E > No, really.  I mean YOU.  What if YOUR PC get's a 0-day exploit and F > sends spam.  Are you going to pay the fine?  Or as the mailadmin, do > you get off?  G It is not going ot happen to my PC, so it's really a moot point.  Let's  at least stick to reality.   > H >> > Been there, done that, didn't work.  You end up punishing the wrong$ >> > people, like in the case above. >>K >> Can't.  If the PC sent the spam because the PC user is an idiot, then it N >> is totally his fault. ISP's can stop this.  Right now, they have absolutelyJ >> no incentive to do so.  Some will continue.  I (personally, not my mailI >> server) have not accepted email from any AOL account in seceral years. I >> I also do onot accept any email from any domain that ends in ".br" and J >> others.  You know what.  I have yet to miss anything.  Or are you goingM >> to tell me I missed that announcement that I won the $10,000,000 Brazilian  >> Lottery?  > B > Yes, but as the Hobbyist Program, I get e-mail from a variety ofE > locations.  I can't just blanket drop entire countries or ISP's.  I B > certainly don't want to go through the process of getting signedB > documents between me and some ISP just because someone has a PAKE > question.  I'm sure there are many other institutions with the same 	 > issues.   H So, you continue to accept email the old way while also getting involvedE with the new system.  And, hopefully, as more and more people see the H value in the new system and make the move you need to rely less and lessE on the dirty email system until eventually, all of the people who use F email for serious reasons have moved to the clean system.  Heck, seemsH to me that the Hobbyist VMS users looks like another very good candidateH for whjat I have started calling "communities".  They could form pocketsF of users depending on location and even establish hubs, all running onG VMS. :-)  And then get you to agree to take a clean feed from the hubs.    > I >> > Yes, but peering news isn't that difficult.  I used to when I was on K >> > Sprint as an ISP.  My current provider doesn't carry a feed, but there H >> > are places that I can get a feed if I need it.  Even still, spam is/ >> > still a big problem on Usenet, even today.  >>J >> Actually, it is much less of a problem than it is on email.  I see veryI >> little spam on my newsfeed.  Probably less than 10 messages a month in J >> all the groups I actively read.  One of the reasons is that the limitedI >> number of connectione between peers makes filtering much easier to do. K >> And, how is peering news any easier than peering email would be?  Usenet L >> 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 H > news.admin.net-abuse.news, enforcements of the Brierbart Index testing? > for spam messages, and often the specific groups in question.  > J >> > Then either you are using the wrong RBL's, or you are not RBL-ing the* >> > entire offending ISP's address space. >>H >> But wait, one of your original problems with my proposed solution wasI >> the liklihood of cutting off customers or potential customers.  Aren't I >> you doing that when you RBL an entire ISP's address space?  If you are E >> not going to accept email from them, then you won't hear from that L >> potential customer.  The big difference is the current method is reactive< >> and I think it is time for amuch more poractive solution. > H > Depends on the RBL, and whether it is used to completely block or flagG > the message.  In your solution, they would have to contact me outside F > of email, and negotiate a peering agreement.  Is that worth it for aH > single e-mail?  But they time you do that, why use e-mail at all, just) > send physical documents or phone calls.   H Well, one would assume in most business relationships that there will beG more than one email.  Or don't you plan on repeat business from the the  very beginning?      > H > The reactive method assumes honest behaviour, yours burdens the honest > right up front.   H Yes, exactly.  Not requiring honesty up front is what has gotten us intoJ the situation we are in today.  And continuing the status quo is not going
 to fix it.   > L >> >             However, you can RBL their address space until they do.  OrB >> > whitelist (which helps but doesn't elimitate the issue due to >> > Job-jobbing). >>K >> Which is still an option.  As long as your going to use the term anyway, L >> think of my proposal as very agressive white-listing.  You have a networkK >> of machines that are white-listed and because the method used to echange H >> email is different, there is no way for someone not on the white-list >> to break into it. > G > Wrong - zombied PC's and JoeJobbing.  How does your system stop that?   ? How does a zombied PC connect to my mailserver using UUCP and a A username/passord pair?  Same thing for "JoeJobbing".  Heck, in my ? case I would probably only open up my firewall for UUCP from my ? list of trusted hosts thus eliminating even the chance of a DOS  attack on the port.    > J >> > You seem to honestly think that will work, since you continue to comeK >> > back to that.  It doesn't work because you are either not punshing the  >> > actual spammer, >>J >> You keep coming back to the supposedly "innocent" PC owner.  Because myO >> network isn't open to the usual PC attacks, this isn't a problem. (Actually, J >> a PC could join the network, but the PC user would have to agree to theJ >> same terms as any other mailhost and, he would have to more knowlegableC >> than the average PC user and thus is not likely to be a threat.)  > F > No, your SERVERS aren't open to the usual attacks, but somehow, thatG > message HAS to make it from a users PC to a server running your magic E > software.  All you've done is established a hude set of 1-1 peering " > between thousands of mail hosts.  H Not necessarily thousands, although that is possible.  I wonder how manyH UUCP email server clients UUNET had in its peak?  Or even seismo who didH it for free.  And the resources available today are far beyond what theyG were then.  People paid not only for the UUNET service but also for the H long distance call.  Surely this would be much cheaper and easier today!   > G > Do the math, let's assume most everyone is going to be good citizens. G > There are 1,000 mail hosts.  How many agreements are going to need to I > 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.  F Maybe, maybe not.  Like I said, the agreement is going to be dependant in the level of trust.   > K >> > Okay, your zombied PC is invovled in a spam run.  Are you going to pay C >> > the $1,000 fine?  A 0-day exploit is found in your system, and K >> > overnight you send out 1,000,000 spams.  You get the bill.  Do you pay  >> > it? >>F >> If you signed a contract, do you have a choice?  Of course, you areD >> free to seek redress from the person who infected your PC, but it8 >> doesn't excuse you from your contractual obligations. > D > Would you (Bill Gunshannon) pay that bill if your PC got infected?  A See above, can't happen.  Others can prevent it too.  Let's stick D to reality.  Someone who is not capable of protecting their computerC infrastructure is unlikely to sign the agreement int he first place C because they would be incapable of even understanding what it said.    > Z >>                                                                           To be honest,D >> I don't see it happening.  The entire architecture of my proposedJ >> network would stand in the way.  All of these attacks you keep bringingI >> up rely on one thing in particular and that is the fact that under the G >> current email architecture on the INTERENT any machinecan send email G >> to any other machine.  Some of them blindly accept email from any of G >> these random machines.  That is the major flaw in the system and one 3 >> that is the first thing my proposal gets rid of.  > F > Not at all.  You keep talking about server-to-server peering, but atH > some point a user at a PC is going to need to send a message over your# > network.  It is an attack vector.   G And that is a matter between the server and its users.  I can guarantee F that my users can't do it.  And that none of the PC's under my controlG get infected.  I have been doing it for years and as I have said, while E the University constantly has infected machines, I don't.  And, trust H me, all those other infected machines accross campus spend a lot of timeI trying to infect mine.  It just doesn't happen.  I know people here don;t D want to hear it, but Windows boxes can be secured and remain usable.   > E >> > I can only hope.  Maybe Linux, since there seems to be much more K >> > security and less abuse of Linux systems out there.  I've only had two L >> > times ever where a Linux box on my network has been exploited (and evenL >> > then, the exposure was limited) - one by a XML PHP script one a friendsL >> > web server (which the fix are readily available) and a SSL V2 flaw many >> > years ago.  >>H >> But, regardless of the OS involved, the major flaw still exists.  AnyJ >> machine can send email to any other machine.  And, add to that how easyK >> it is to spoof identitiy under SMTP and the problem still exists.  It is 0 >> these two fatal flaws that I eliminate first. > E > If your idea spreads, the PC becomes a prefered attack vector, just C > like SMTP is today.  It doesn't protect the server from the user. I > After all, at some point someone sitting at the PC has to click "send", G > 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 Well, it becomes the serves responsibility to police its users.  ThereH are a number of ways to do this already, ranging from procatively tryingD to protect your users PC's to scanning all the email that comes fromH your users looking for spam.  Again, one of the needs to fix the problemH is to catch it as close to the origination as possible even if you can'tH completely prevent it.  Maybe this will finally drive the development ofF a better MTA<->MUA protocol to deal with the "last mile" problem.  TheH implementation of my proposal even now before this problem is solved canE improve the situation for an extremely large number of serious users. I And that is my primary concern.  Personally, I expect that serious use of G Email accounts for probably less than 5% of the non-spam email.  Making G a clean path for just that would greatly improve the utuility of email. I If I could take the email that comes in from a specific path and not have G to filter it at all, I eliminate the possibilty of missing an important D message due to a false positive or because some remote end had a bad  weekend and found itself RBL'ed.   > G >> > You don't see it, do you?  The COMPANY missed a service pack/virus F >> > update.  The USERS data was on the COMPANY's computer.  Jury willH >> > probably award large damages.  Company will review putting critical) >> > data on MS software, as will others.  >>M >> MS has been in court before.  The courts chose to punish them by extending H >> their reach.  All of these problems are already well known.  HIPPA isH >> probably the biggest data protection responsibility  with the biggestH >> teeth.  And yet, hospitals are rushing headlong into putting more andH >> more of their infrastructure on PC's running MS software.  Go figure. > I > That's why I'm waiting the class-action against the Company (they won't C > go after MS, they will go after the company that got comproised).   F Well, if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.  The only one who willF get anything out of that will be the lawyers (as usual).  Nothing will chcange.   > I >> > Exactly.  Pandora's box has been openned.  Things that worked in the K >> > good old days just don't apply anymore and/or don't scale well.  After F >> > all, that's why DNS was born, since even in the early DARPA days,6 >> > propogating a /etc/hosts wasn't feasible anymore. >>G >> Which doesn't change under my proposal.  We still run DNS.  We still H >> connect accross the INTERNET.  We just don't use SMTP for our seriousH >> email.  Many people today agree that while it may have been nice whenG >> it first came out it was not a well designed protocol and doesn't do H >> the job well.  So then, why are we still using it?  Inertia?  Why notJ >> start a different system in paralel and let things continue to develop?H >> Maybe after seeing what happens between the two systems we might findJ >> that there is a third, as yet un-designed, system that is the long-term
 >> winner. > E > Okay, then I will suggest that for your solution to succeed, at the G > MINIMUM you will need buy-in from Microsoft.  You will need PC client G > software and server software available built-in/enhance existing SMTP 9 > servers.  Do you think this is an incorrect suggestion?   D No need for buyin from MS.  Who, by the way, would have no incentiveC to get involved.  It wouldn't put a dime in their posckets and that C is all they care about.  PC's can remain the last mile.  For people G who insist on serving their email with Exchange or Outlook or whatever, E they will likely need another server that can play on the clean email G network (not unlike the many places that run proxies or DMZed gateways) F or not play.  All depends on whether or not they see value in being on the clean email network.   > ' > There is going to be lots of inertia.   G There always is.  Until a new system starts it doesn't have much chance E of gaining any of that needed inertia.  But change is inevitable.  We D can't continue on the path we are on today.  Maybe my proposal isn'tB the solution, but if it's not, maybe it will spur development of aE better solution.  The main point is we can't continue with the status " quo because therein lies disaster.   >  > G >> > Society has scammers, cons, thieves, and more.  D/ARPANET wasn't a L >> > target since there wasn't enough volume to be worth it.  Now instead ofE >> > thousands of people, it's millions of people.  Not just research E >> > scientists and Computer Science students.  It's kids, grandma's, B >> > executives, homeless - and the best and worst of all of them. >>M >> Yeah, it's kind of like the difference between city life and country life. $ >> Now, there's a social difference. > I > No, it more like a gated community.  Keeps out the bad guys.  Often, it G > keeps out your friends, too.  They just can stop by for a vist nearly  > as easily.  K Yeah, and look at how accepted gated communities have become.  Maybe that's N the answer.  I'll start calling my email communities "gated email communities"# and people will flock to them.  :-)    > K >> > Not just the volume, but the target-rich environment.  How many people L >> > used to have e-mail 20 years ago?  FAXes where the big thing back then.B >> >  But they had a "spamming" problem of their own, didn't they?G >> > Something the Telecommunication Protection Act of 1991 had to help H >> > solve.  Well, it didn't so much, since the FCC had many forfeituresI >> > even as lately as a few of years ago with fax.com and American Blast 	 >> > Fax.  >> >2 >> > Same scum, just adapting to newer technology. >>L >> Granted, but I am not willing to just throw up my hands and say, "OK, the >> spammers win!"  > H > True, but your system burdens the mail admin heavily and make them the5 > central point of focus for each users address book.   L We are already burdened.  And that burden is increasing exponentially.  And,I on top of that, we are loosing ground.  Being an admin, I don't see it as I that much of a burden  compared to what the gains may be.  Hopefully when H I get the chacne to spell out everything I propose in detail others will6 also see that the gain outweighs any percieved burden.   > L >> > But as I've mentioned, you can't stop the "point of origin" due to muchI >> > of the fraud and unauthorized use of zombied PC's, open proxies, and 0 >> > various software exploits curerntly in use. >>J >> But, again, those attacks all rely on the two fatal flaws of SMTP.  TheK >> ability of any machine to connect to any other machine for the excahnage K >> of mail (this one coupled to the willingness of most machines to blindly I >> accept it) and the ability under SMTP to spoof your identity.  Neither 6 >> of which will be possible under my proposed system. > G > Why?  So far all you've addressed is MTA->MTA, where's the MUA fit in  > and how is it unexploitable?  J The user end is already handlable.  I keep my PC's clean.  I am willing toM bet that so do the majority of serious email users (real businesses, schools, L etc.)  Has your PC been zombied lately?  Mine never has.  Some of mine can'tG be.  I do not expect all the grandma's or 9 year olds to play.  I don't F expect their ISP's to play.  I do expect those who have a real need toF use email for serious business to play.  And, no, I don't include Ebay in that catagory.    > K >> >                                              Since often, the Received G >> > header you track either is fradulent, or only gets you back to the C >> > exploited system - not back the the actual spammer in control.  >>E >> Actually, I have yet to receive any email message that I could not 5 >> identify the actual IP Address of the real sender.  > H > No, you can only trace it back to the last Received header of the SMTPH > dialog.  You have no real idea of how the message got to that system -F > actual user or injected through a trojan proxy or other exploit.  IfG > you believe that the Recieved headers take you completely back to the A > true original origin, you haven't really seen what spammers do.   B I can take it back to the real original IP address (usually a DHCPE address from an ISP).  The ISP can (but usually won't without a court C order) identify the user.  The reason for the box doing what it did ? is not my concern.  If it's your box, your responsiblity.   The & courts agree.  (Steve Jackson Games!!)   > L >> > The problem is oh-so-much bigger than just getting Ma Kettle to sign anH >> > AUP saying she won't spam.  She won't, but that doesn't mean her PC1 >> > won't be an unwitting accomplice to the act.  >>J >> One:  That is between her and her ISP.  If the ISP cares they will takeI >> a more proactive role in preventing it.  (Hint:  I run a lot's of PC's J >> that are open to all our students.  While the University constantly hasH >> doezens of infected PC's in its labs, I hve not had an infected PC in, >> any of my labs since the Windows98 days.)K >> Two:  If the ISP is not interested, fine, they don't join my network and I >> are free to stay out there on the INTERNET with an email to spam ratio 
 >> of 2%/98%.  > C > Then I think I can safely say that this is exactly what they will H > probably do.  Why is someone sending you an e-mail worth getting their< > legal department involved negotiating a peering agreement?  G Why does anyone run Oracle?  Legal departments have to get involved for F that too.  I have to run every license agreement I am required to signG through our legal people.  If they see value in what they will get from F signing the agreement, they run it by their legal department.  And, inE case you are interested, I have had agreements for real products from F real companies (one very close to our hearts) that my legal departmentD has said we could not sign.  The options are then negotiate a betterC agreement that pleases the lawyers or don't play.  There is nothing " new in this regard in my proposal.   >  > G >> > No, you didn't mention that.  So how do you get the whole world to  >> > switch to your protocol,  >>F >> Actually, I have mentioned it numerous times.  I don't give a rat'sC >> patootie about the whole world, only those who are interested in E >> making Email useful again.  It's not my protocol. It's been around J >> for a couple decades and is supported by lots of boxes as well. (PrettyF >> much any UNIX system and ther eused to be versions for VMS as well,H >> but like much other software, I can't really say that the VMS version >> kept up.)  It's called UUCP.  > G > You're kidding right?  I've run UUCP for years before I got internet,  > and it's not a mail protocol.   E Of course it's not specifiaclly an email protocol.  It is, however, a D very good email transport protocol.  When you come right down to it,G what is email?  Just a text file that needs to be moved from one server F to another.  Email was moved this way long before SMTP was more than aB gleam in someone's eye.  The big advantages it has are:  It is notH anonymous, it can move email, it is authenticated, and it already existsI in a totally functional form.  I am sure a new protocol to do all of this I could be developed, and maybe, this proposal will spur that developpment. K But if we can start to fix the problem now using stuff we already have, why F wait while we continue to wring our hands and moan about the probblem?   > F >> >                          and why is it unable to be exploited any >> > differently than SMTP has?  >>K >> Because, it lacks two of the basic flaws of SMTP.  The ability of random K >> machines to connect to anyone else and the ability to spoof who you are.  > I > Wrong - UUCP is only a point-to-point file transfer protocol.  It would E > not be difficult for forge an e-mail to a UUCP host and cause it to  > forward it.     G Only if you can find an open relay that's also a member of the network. E The actual MTA is going to be the same as what you run now (sendmail, B postfix, etc.) so if they can relay UUCP through it they can relayB anything.  I would hope there are very few open email relays left.  E >              Authentication is done via a clear-text password file,  > too.  F Maybe, if your still running Ultrix.  But even as far back as my earlyC SYSV days the files were not readable by anyone anyway.  And, on my C mailserver no one can even log on so even if it were world readable F no one could get at it.  Security has cahnged a lot in the past couple> decades.  I like to think today's admins have kept up with it.   > G >> > Read the news.  An owner of a bot-net recently got some jail time.  >>H >> 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.  D I am not aware of any criminal law against spamming.  Civil law, butB you can't go to jail for that.  But then, I would have to read theB court papers (and wade throught he lawyerese) to know the reality.   > F >> >                                           And exactly how does myI >> > email get from my server to your server when whatever paper work you : >> > require is done?  And how is it not subject to abuse? >>J >> Accross the INTERNET the same way it does now.  Only using UUCP insteadH >> of SMTP.  It might surprise you to find out that most of the existing' >> MTA's can still deal with UUCP.  :-)  > E > Yes, by accepting mail via SMTP (or sendmail if you are on a telnet E > session) and then routing them over UUCP.  UUCP (Unix-to-Unix CoPy) H > isn't a mail protocol.  You still haven't fixed mail, just essentiallyF > swapped TCP for UUCP between servers but the SMTP injection point is > still vulnerable.   E But I have reduced that injection point to machines under my control. F Assuming the primary threat is those rogue PC's, it is to my advantageG to not have to accept them at all.  If I can move all of my MTA traffic B off of SMTP, I can block port 25 at the firewall and never have toG worry about an infected PC again.  As I said, my PC's are not a threat. > I can keep them that way.  So can others, given the incentive.  I > Also, due to smart-hosting, once you can inject a message into one UUCP F > server, the "trust" network will enable you to spam the entire trust
 > network.  H OK, give me the explicit details about how you, as an outsider are goingH to inject your email into my UUCP network.  You are not going to connectG my UUCP MTA because you can't authenticate and I don't accept anonymous H copnnections (which is basicly what all SMTP connetctions are).  And, ifG you are not one of my local PC's, my MTA will not accept your email for E delivery on the clean email network unless it originated on it.  Now, F I am sure you are going to say well one of my peers is ifnected, but ID kind of expect they are all going to be as diligent as I am and that is not very likely.    > I >> > Part of the problem of your solution is that it requires cooperation 4 >> > from a rather large number of ISP's and admins, >>E >> No, only those who want to see Email become useful for their users C >> again.  the rest are free to stay with what they currently have. B >> When USENET first came into existence it was just AT&T machinesA >> exchanging email.  It had a number of serious limitations.  It I >> used the phone system as it's transport.  That meant it was expensive. H >> More so depending on distance.  So it had to do most of its moving atI >> night. This meant time.  A message could take several days to get from J >> source to destination.  And still it grew.  Eventually, hubs showed up.K >> Machines like seismo and others and eventually, UUNET.  This sped things H >> up a bit but it still required mostly waiting until nighttime to moveI >> messages.  And still, it grew.  This was probably its biggest drawback L >> and the one it no longer has as it can use the INTERNET for its transport
 >> medium. > I > The biggest problem what that the routing of Usenet (compiling the UUCP ? > MAPS from Rutgers) was a royal pain in order to determine the E > routeability from one node to another.  it just doesn't scale well.   A I didn't find it to be that big of a problem 20 years ago and the D resources available today are considerably greater.  Like I said, itC would be interesting to know how many clients and routes seismo and C later UUNET handled.  And then equate that to the resources we have E available today.  Even doing it the old fashioned way would be orders A of magnitude faster just based ont he difference in hardware, but F given the chance to rework some of it with modern tools (routes storedF in MySQL) I think scalability would be less of a problem than you seem	 to think.    > J >> It is not necessary for there to be a mass movement right up front.  ItL >> can easily co-exist with the current system and be allowed to grow on its' >> own.  Let's look at one possibility.  > B > They did.  I ran one.  That kind of 1-1 peering arrangement just > doesn't scale.  B But it isn't really a one to one peering any more than Usenet News@ is.  I don't expect every email user in the world to talk to me.@ I expect hubs to do this.  the big difference between the way it> used to be and today is the idea that it would likely never be5 more than, say, 5-6 hops from one place to another.      > G >> We here in c.o.v are a rather well-kniit community.  So, we set up a F >> network that involves us.  Most of us would likely trust each otherF >> making the agreement between us much easier.  Now, we can all agreeC >> to exchange email with everyone else, or we can have a couple of E >> people (like Island and Montagar just for example) volunteer to be I >> hubs.  The hubs set up their UUCP to accept email from the mailservers J >> of the otehr members of the c.o.v community.  So, emails between any ofH >> us goes to one of the hubs and then to the destination mailhost.  TwoG >> hops and probably gets there just as fast it would under the current I >> system.  Now, I'm a University.  Because of academic interests I start I >> getting agreements with other schools.  Some of the big ones might opt G >> to be hubs (heck even I can do that!!).  Same thing as we had in the I >> c.o.v community.  But wait, now the c.o.v community also has a cleaner H >> way to exchange email with all the Universities that sign on.  And so( >> it grows.  At least in my dream.  :-) > F > Well, first I need to get UUCP software that TCP/IP SMTP can talk toE > for Alpha or Integrity.  Until then, I   don't have the software to  > participate.  G Well, as I said, I don't know if VMS software has kept up, most hasn't. G which is sad, but that is not really a flaw in my proposal.  That's the J same old problem we grouse about here all the time. The other option wouldF be a gateway.  A machine capable of exchanging mail between your localF trusted VMS Mailhost and a UUCP capable machine specifically set up to# gateway to the clean email network.    > F >> >                                                  several software >> > developers, >> >> What software developers? > : > Windows version of UUCP?  VMS version of UUCP?  Or are y  D Well, they existed in the past.  May not have kept up over time, but- there is alwyas the option I mentioned above.    > I > But here's a big point.  In another post you mention how all these mail F > admins can't fix mal-configured mail servers, get off RBL lists, fixF > their users problems even when YOU provide the solution.  So I see aH > 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 No, I am addressing the competent mail admins.  Thise who won't fix C their systems now are obviously not concerned with the service they C offer and, apparently their users aren't concerned.  They fall into F that 98% of non-serious users.  If they have serious users, they will,D most likely, get an account on another machine that works, much like they do now.  :-)      > E > I mean, that is part of the social problem to begin with, isn't it?   B No, incompetence is not a social problem, it's much more personal.   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: 27 Nov 2006 18:13:37 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: increase in spam and what to do about it 0 Message-ID: <4t0o6hF11i1kvU1@mid.individual.net>  , In article <ekc29h$41a$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,! 	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: ] > In article <4ssd5nF110jjhU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: 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 itA >>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 >>>> > Then the social solution (valid or not) is socially unaccepted. >>>>H >>>> My social solution has not yet been tried, so we don't know that it >>>> is socially unaccepted. >>> 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... >> >>> L >>>> > Unless you charge per e-mail, there's nothing removing the conduit orL >>>> > preventing its abuse.  But then you penalize good people just for the& >>>> > sake of banning the bad people. >>>>I >>>> Metered service has been looked at and it is unacceptable.  Plus, it J >>>> doesn't stop spam but is very likely to make the innocent pay for it. >>> 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.  >> > Two problems > O > 1) One-to-one agreements aren't scalable with the modern internet unless you  N >    severely restrict who you want to talk to which would be unacceptable for >    most organisations.  A Actually, among the more serious users, it is probably a lot more D acceptable than you think.  Many places don't allow the use of theirA email system for anything but official communications both in and C outside ot their own house.  (ie. Procter & Gamble).  .mil and .gov C severly restrict what can be accessed from their networks.  I would @ think that places like this would very much like to have a clean? network from which they could contact and conduct business with @ their contractors.  As would many other serious .coms.  The onlyG one who seems to be likely to prefer being on the outside are the ISP's D with their grandma's and their 9 year old users.  I odn't know aboutE you, but I really have no need to contact or to be contacted by them.    >  >    (O >     note. Usenet News is not a one-to-one agreement between your organisation P >     and the senders. You have one-to-one agreements with your Usenet feeds butO >     they just pass along ALL those newsgroups you have agreed to accept which 9 >     in turn have been passed along from their feeds etc O >     Any particular Usenet posting will have passed through a large number of  O >     Usenet systems, which you have no direct agreement with, before reaching  P >     your systems. Usenet is also a broadcast system, unlike email, which makes  >     such a structure feasible.  E Which is why I used Usenet only as an example of how halfway measures E helped.  Considering the volume, Usenet has considerably less spam by D percentage than most emails today.  I saw no spam messages on UsenetE over the weekend while even with moderate filtering at the server and D aggressive filtering at the personal mailbox I still had a real/spamB ratio of 2/183 just over the last 4 days.  This is handled by spamC filtering and the UDP.  Not much, but it works.  Peering agreements C with the email system can do it to, but they would require a system A that eliminates the three primary flaws I have already mentioned. 0 Three flaws that NNTP does not have, by the way.   > 9 >     Also, of course, Usenet has it's own problems with  $ >     inappropriate postings/SPAM.    < See above, not even close to the level found in email today.   >  >    ) >  > N > 2)  Getting organisations to sign legally binding contracts with respect to 8 >     their emission of SPAM is likely to be difficult.   C Again, what the agreement ends out being is left as an exercise for ? the reader.  If you deal with someone who's AUP you are already @ awar of and you know they enforce it draconianly (ie. .mil) then@ you might not require any kind of formal agreement.  I have said? the same thing about "communities" like c.o.v.  Strongly worded A binding contracts are more likely going ot be for those you don't B trust.  they might show you how deterined to work within the rulesA they are.  if they don't want to agree to paly by the rules, send  'em packin'.   >  > Q > It looks like there was an attempt to set something like this up which overcame / > the first problem via the use of a whitelist.  > If you look on   > 0 > http://shopping.declude.com/Articles.asp?ID=97 > 3 > you'll find a fairly good list of anti-spam lists  >  > at the bottom it mentions  >  > Q > BONDEDSENDER                        -   A whitelist of E-mail senders that have . > 					posted a bond to help prove that their  > 					E-mail is legitimate. >  > J > Sadly, if not particularly unexpectedly,  when you go to the url listed ' > http://www.bondedsender.org/ you find K > that the service has been renamed "Sender Score Certified" and no longer  0 > seems to mention anything about posting bonds.  D But, by not eliminating the three flaws I have already mentioned, itD was doomed from the beginning.  The current system can not be fixed.B We can try an already existing method that eliminates these flaws,C we can create a whole new protocol that elimantes these flaws or we C can stay with the status quo.  Putting a bandaid and some neosporin B on a wound isn't going to help if the wound is already gangrenous.   >  >  >>> H >>>> > How do you stop it at the source?  Which is the spammer, himself? >>>>L >>>> True.  You stop it by not giving the spammer a venue from which to sendM >>>> his spam.  The sysadmins all agree (by contract) to not allow spam to be M >>>> sent from their systems. Penalty: ostracism.  The sysadmins of the local M >>>> mailsystems have AUP's that carry penalties (which depend on the type of K >>>> organization, ie. ISP - include hefty fines in your customer contract, K >>>> business - employee can be fired, school - expulsion or other academic L >>>> sanctions, etc.)  Thus, the spammer has no place where he is welcome on >>>> the new email network.  > 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. >>H >>>                               So you end up not billing or punishingH >>> the spammer, anyway.  You kill one spammer account, and they have 10& >>> more waiting to abuse when needed. >>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. >> >>> K >>> Of course, now much spam is from zombied Windows boxes.  The spam can't J >>> be traced back past the zombied PC.  So, do you fine and terminate theI >>> account of the person with the infected PC?  That's going to sit well I >>> with customers.  What about the Wingate proxy exploitation of several J >>> years ago?  The proxy would allow SOCK4-like remote access, making theF >>> Wingate proxy appear to be the source, but no way to determine whoK >>> initiated the connection.  And the wide variety of formmail.pl web form K >>> abuse that occured (and actually, I STILL had several dozen attempts by C >>> some spammer to test my form mail web script on the Hobby Site: K >>> dinotto2@aol.com and topcopl2@aol.com are their test accounts - may the G >>> harvesters get them)?  And there are still open SOCK4 proxies, open D >>> SMTP relays, and any number of other methods people are spamming: >>> without using mail servers they are authorized to use. >>E >>And, because my proposal doesn't use SMTP at all, none of the above  >>pose a threat.   >> > : > If your not using SMTP then what are you using (UUCP)  ? >  > 5 > http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html  >  > programmer-11 ( >     The FUSSP involves replacing SMTP.  B I'll visit the site, but I got the idea from other comments I haveF seen that they post mostly humorous stuff.  maybe I have them confusedG with someone else.  Of course, the last line looks like they agree with  me on at least one point.    >  >  >>> I >>> They are already not using email networks where they are not welcome, # >>> so why does your solution work?  >>E >>How are they "not using email networks where they are not welcome"? C >>Right now, except for private networks, there is only one network C >>and everyone who is exchanging email is using it.  Any Email host B >>(and many non-legitimate ones like zombied PC's) can contact anyE >>other and 90% of them will accept the connection and the email from  >>any other. >> >>> 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. >>J > Your free to set up your own agreements with whatever companies you wishN > to accept their mail and reject all other mail. It's easy enough to do with Q > most mailservers (no need to switch to UUCP just set up your mailserver to only I > accept mail from specific IP addresses). However such a solution isn't  O > acceptable to most companies who want complete strangers (otherwise known as  ( > customers) to be able to contact them.  J Which is why my proposal is to run both simultaneously and let the seriousE user migrate as they see the value of it until eventually all of your F serious usrs (read real customers) are on the clean system and you canK pay much less attention to the garbage.  Let me throw one more example out. I We have all been spammed by someone who got our address from c.o.v.  Many I people have been forced to munging their address (which poses a burden on I anyone who wishes to talk to them because they can no longer just use the K reply option!) or having other mail accounts on other machines specifically E for use in Usenet postings, which is certainly a butrden on the user. H What if the address you used in your Usenet postings couldn't be reachedD by people outside the group, but could be by those within the group?! Wouldn't that offer an advantage?    >    >>> L >>>> Read what I said up above. The customers of the ISP all sign a contractC >>>> (I know I had to!)  You put serious penalties in the contract.  >>>  > D >>> Yes, but they really have no teeth, the spammers are often using >>> fraudulent information,  >>I >>If I don't know/trust the individual, I require them to prove who they  J >>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.  >>C >>>                         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. >>I >>>                                                                or the = >>> spammers are using network which they are not authorized.  >>J >>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.  >> >>> 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.  :-)  >> > K > Sorry your system will only work if you can impose such rules on all the  K > ISPs and your only weapon against those who don't comply is to stop them  J > sending you mail. Until the majority of internet sites adopt those rulesJ > it is simpler for the ISPs to just ignore your rules and let you isolate > yourself.   L But as long as I continue to accept other emails as well, I am not isolated.L And, as the users I want to communicat4e with begoin to migrate (assuming myK idea takes hold, of course) I can slowly begin to more and more agressively J filter their garbage and it is eventually they that will be isolated, in aJ sea of spam.  I don't care about that 98% of garbage that makes up most ofJ the INTERNET.  I am sure that most real businesses and acadeics doing realH research and people like c.o.v who share a common interest are the same.F Let those who really want to get all that spam stay with their ISP and! take it all in.  I don't want it.    > 5 > http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html  >  > senior-IETF-member-5Q >     The FUSSP won't be effective until it has been deployed at more than 60% of , >     SMTP servers and that's not a problem.  M Mine takes some point at which it attains critical mass as well.  I will look K at this FUSSP stuff, but unless it eliminates the three flaws in SMTP it is K doomed to failure.  And, if it is yet to be implemented in any usable form, K my proposal still has the advantage.  Given some number of interested email I system admins I can have the first stages of my network up and running in J less than 24 hours.  The software is already there and the hardware neededJ to run it (especially int he earlier stages) can be found in most people's	 junk box.   H And, to add even more fuel to the fire, ever hear of HECnet?  It's thereG and I understand it works.  And it really offers much less utility than 
 what I offer.    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: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:16:25 GMT # From: "FredK" <fred@nospam.dec.com> - Subject: Re: Is HP trying to kill VMS again ? 2 Message-ID: <ZqCah.2824$T46.2627@news.cpqcorp.net>  C "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspringdot.com> wrote in message  U news:rdeininger-2211062301010001@dialup-4.233.173.176.dial1.manchester1.level3.net... H > In article <ww59h.4454$T6.2665@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "David Turner,: > Island Computers US Corp" <dbturner@islandco.com> wrote: >    > I > They have a couple of upgrade paths to VMS on Integrity that would save J > them money compared to Alpha.  In particular, the office-friendly rx2620G > with 1 CPU (2 cores) is probably a very nice fit.  I would expect any F > customer migrating thousands of systems to take advantage of licenseG > trade-in programs.  And hardware discounts are common in large deals.  >   M FWIW - I just got a brand new rx2620 with the office freindly option.  It is  K a huge improvement and is dramatically quieter than the rx2600 I have next  = to it (which I think now will retire except for emergencies).    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:03:23 GMT # From: "FredK" <fred@nospam.dec.com> & Subject: Re: Mouse: thumbwheel support2 Message-ID: <LeCah.2822$k06.1856@news.cpqcorp.net>  ; "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message  1 news:598ef$456669f4$cef8887a$4856@TEKSAVVY.COM...   K > Is it normal that without any key modifiers, it seems to act as a simple  K > "up/down" arrow key ? (as opposed to affecting the vertical scroll bar).  H > If I press <CTRL> while rolling the thumbwheel, it then seems to be a  > page/up/page/down. >   I By default in Motif CTRL-up/down arrow activates the scroll bar.  Try it  L with the normal KB and see.  All I did was to effectively implement a Linux K hack from a while back - to make the thumbwheel generate the up/down arrow   keys.   H Note that not all applications follow the Motif style-guide for various I reasons... so (for example) in Mozilla the up/down arrow keys scroll the  & window without the CTRL key held down.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:06:49 GMT ' From: ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> + Subject: Re: OpenVMS and Windows on Itanium 8 Message-ID: <JpBah.60214$TH3.26817@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>   William Pechter wrote:. > In article <44FDADAE.C76386D8@teksavvy.com>,1 > JF Mezei  <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:  >  >>Hoff Hoffman wrote:  >>Q >>>   OpenVMS does not have a VM in the immediate future, so you won't see guests  >>>running on OpenVMS. >> >> >>DEC HAD IT NOW.  >>G >>It was called SOFTPC from insignia solutions. Had they continued with F >>it, it would have been able to run modern windows. Alas, development@ >>stopped early at DOS (and it only emulates a 286 as I recall). >  > ? > The later Sun versions of it worked with Windows3.1 and 95... # > Ran it on UltraSparc5's and 10's.  > < > I don't think Insignia Solutions does any of that anymore. >  > Bill  G Yes, and having tried to use it, found it unusably, pathetically slow.  G At least Sun tried to make the pc on other hardware idea work properly  F by providing a 486 based hardware accelerator card for Sbus. That was E slow on the workstations of the day as well, but it was usable, even   with Windows..  H A software only solution could never be fast enough on the older Vaxen,    but on Alpha, perhaps...   Chris    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:16:42 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>( Subject: Re: OpenVMS Clustering Question) Message-ID: <ekf31b$18h4$1@pyrite.mv.net>    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: j > In article <9359d$45686b4a$cef8887a$23178@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >> Question: >>I >> With Wildfire class machines, there is shared memory between the CPUs.  >>O >> Some time ago, VMS had some sort of snapshot service where you could take a  M >> snapshot of VMS , and you could then reboot immediatly into that snapshot  G >> (where the snapshot services would create all process contexts , io   >> channels etc).  >> > Q > The snapshot service was just meant to get an image of a newly booted system it I > had a large number of restrictions such as not being able to cope with  J > a cluster environment, not being able to cope with "uncertified images",E > not being able to cope with processes with open writeable files etc O > The workaround being that after the snapshot startup various things were then & > run in a post snapshot cleanup file.  F    The mechanism was also only available on VAX, and only on specific 	 versions.   "    The given name was "fast boot".  I    There were one or two other uses of "snapshot" around, just to add to   the confusion.  @    I'd also personally like to see checkpoint-restart, but that ? invariably involves applications in the processing, and adding  B interfaces to allow applications to periodically checkpoint their I progress.  Anything short of that is, well, exceedingly difficult to get   right.  F    There's a simpler version of this -- an analog to this -- with the " existing batch process checkpoint.  E    Make no mistake -- this is a big project -- the aggregate process  = state is scattered all over system and process address space.   B    There's a version of this checkpoint-restart mechanism already F available, I might add.  It's called a transactional database.  Works H nicely.  If you're not working on a database, you can implement most of < what you need here using locks and existing RMS flush calls.  H    I'd also suggest DECdtm could assist here, but I don't know that the B interface for a user-written resource manager ever got published. H AFAIK, it has not been.  If I were to be working on an open-source port H of OpenVMS for IA-32e and/or AMD64, DECdtm is where I'd look to add the C core of the checkpoint-restart capabilities... :-)  There would be  I application modifications required for full coordination and compliance,  D though you might be able to provide a mostly-functional brute-force G checkpoint-restart scheme that used an IPAST trigger to flush the file  I system buffers and quiesce the I/O within the context of each process --  I that sequence would simulate a crash or power failure, but it would also  H wedge the process I/O while the BACKUP wandered past or a member volume H was pulled out from underneath the HBVS VU; from a multi-unit shadowset  volume.   H    If DECdtm wasn't appropriate, locks could also be gotten to work for I a simpler form of checkpoint restart.  This would be a more isolated and  E thus somewhat simpler implementation, and not without some potential  
 exposures.  G    The interesting part of the checkpoint-restart operation is that it  F is also semi-related to reliable on-line BACKUP operations.  A way to D obtain a consistent BACKUP is arguably equivalent to the checkpoint I operation, though it's also a subset of a system-wide checkpoint-restart  
 operation.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:40:48 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>( Subject: Re: OpenVMS Clustering Question) Message-ID: <ekf4ej$18sf$1@pyrite.mv.net>   
 AEF wrote: > JF Mezei wrote:  >> Question: >>I >> With Wildfire class machines, there is shared memory between the CPUs.  >>N >> Some time ago, VMS had some sort of snapshot service where you could take aL >> snapshot of VMS , and you could then reboot immediatly into that snapshotF >> (where the snapshot services would create all process contexts , io >> channels etc).  ... I > Didn't the fault tolerant VAX systems like the ft810 do exactly this (I H > mean, processes aren't lost as described by the OP)? Two CPU's runningG > the same instructions with fault-tolerant software to handle the case H > where one processor fails and the system continues using the remainingB > processor as if nothing had happened. I guess that's a hybrid of > software and hardware.  F    The VAXft (or sometimes ftVAX) series and its lock-step processing F doesn't provide for checkpoint and restart of processes or of process H migration as much as it avoids potential hardware-level errors that can A cause process failures.  Instruction-level failures -- where the  C processor fails to properly process an instruction stream due to a  B hardware-level error of some sort -- were the target of the VAXft I series.  The VAXft system hardware executes each instruction in parallel  E within separate processors, and watches for what should be identical  F results.  (This is a version of dual-core or SMP, but for purposes of @ increased reliability and not for potential parallel-processing 
 performance.)   E    This VAXft market is also the target for the HP Integrity NonStop  F server series.  There are discussions of the Integrity NonStop server H and traditional MIPS lockstep and the more loosely-coupled "rendezvous" , scheme used on the Integrity server line at:  : http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/NSAABusinessWP.pdf  9 http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/files/unprotected/nonstop/ E    partnersummit/2004/americas/Ti12_Getting_Ready_Crilley-Kossler.pdf   B    And (as I mentioned in a previous reply) you can roll your own C application-level checkpoint-restart.  An automatic or system-wide  ! solution is rather more effort...    ------------------------------   Date: 27 Nov 2006 13:05:00 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)# Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues 0 Message-ID: <4t063sF11gokfU2@mid.individual.net>  C In article <1164559755.653889.177090@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, ' 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F >> In article <1164520070.551042.321500@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,* >> 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes: >> >K >> > Well, it may be that writing won't help in this case. But sometimes it I >> > does. It saved Star Trek TOS once (but not the second time), and got  >> > Paramount to make a movie.  >>K >> Are you equating VMS with TOS?  One was worthlessi and saving it a total & >> waste of time, you guess which one. > G > No. I was simply giving an example in which a letter writing campaign 8 > worked. And I disagree with your opinion of Star Trek.  F OK. But the main point is that the TOS people live or die depending onG how the general public accepts their programming.  Can the same be said F of VMS?  If you are a multi-million (billion?) dollar account HP might< care what you have to say, but as for you and me, well......   > K >> > But if you do write, be polite and to the point and try to show how it F >> > affects HP or whoever is reading it. Hey, it's not like you'll beK >> > spending months writing a novel, or breaking your back digging a moat. K >> > It's just a letter or two, ... or three. But when you're done with the I >> > letter, put it down. Wait some time. And then pick up the letter and L >> > read it imagining someone sent it to you. How would you react to it? IfG >> > you'd react negatively, tear it up and try again. Yeah, it may not 3 >> > work, but doing nothing definitely won't work.  >>H >> And include lot's of jokes, cause the reader is going to laughing his >> ass off anyway....  > " > Fine. And you misspelled 'lots'.  D Lifes a bitch and then you die.  So, are you an english teacher,too?   >  >> >> >K >> > Remember baseball. We've all seen it. The umpire makes a controversial J >> > call. One of the managers comes out of the dugout and goes to yell atH >> > and argue with the ump. Has that ever, even once, changed the ump'sH >> > mind? I've never seen it. Even if it has happened, it's certainly a; >> > tiny minority of all such arguments. So keep it civil.  >>J >> Really bad example.  The manager isn't going out there to try to changeK >> the unpire's mind.  He is going out there to put on a show for the fans. 8 >> Afterall, it's all just supposed to be entertainment. > E > Pretty lousy "entertainment" if you ask me. I always hated it. It's % > BO-RING (pronounced with a long O).   F I point to your comment above about TOS.  Several million people don't@ agree with you.  :-) (I do, but what do I count for, anyway....)   > H > So you think yelling and arguing with HP management is going to do any > good? I said *if* you write.  E I didn't say that.  My point is that writing at all is a total waster C of time unless you are one of those multi-million (billion?) dollar A accounts.  And even then, at this point in time, I am not sure it  would have any effect.   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: 27 Nov 2006 05:24:36 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com># Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues B Message-ID: <1164633876.730415.93290@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:E > In article <1164559755.653889.177090@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, ) > 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:  > >  > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:H > >> In article <1164520070.551042.321500@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,, > >> 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes: > >> >M > >> > Well, it may be that writing won't help in this case. But sometimes it K > >> > does. It saved Star Trek TOS once (but not the second time), and got ! > >> > Paramount to make a movie.  > >>M > >> Are you equating VMS with TOS?  One was worthlessi and saving it a total ( > >> waste of time, you guess which one. > > I > > No. I was simply giving an example in which a letter writing campaign : > > worked. And I disagree with your opinion of Star Trek. > H > OK. But the main point is that the TOS people live or die depending onI > how the general public accepts their programming.  Can the same be said H > of VMS?  If you are a multi-million (billion?) dollar account HP might> > care what you have to say, but as for you and me, well......  D You lost me. I have no idea what you're saying. The TOS people? TheyG were a small part of their company just like VMS is a small part of HP. A Live or die? It was up to NBC, or DesiLu, or whomever, whether to ( continue TOS. Please clarify your point.   >  > > M > >> > But if you do write, be polite and to the point and try to show how it H > >> > affects HP or whoever is reading it. Hey, it's not like you'll beM > >> > spending months writing a novel, or breaking your back digging a moat. M > >> > It's just a letter or two, ... or three. But when you're done with the K > >> > letter, put it down. Wait some time. And then pick up the letter and N > >> > read it imagining someone sent it to you. How would you react to it? IfI > >> > you'd react negatively, tear it up and try again. Yeah, it may not 5 > >> > work, but doing nothing definitely won't work.  > >>J > >> And include lot's of jokes, cause the reader is going to laughing his > >> ass off anyway....  > > $ > > Fine. And you misspelled 'lots'. > F > Lifes a bitch and then you die.  So, are you an english teacher,too?  G No. If I misuse or misspell a word, I like to be told about it. So much  for the Golden Rule.   >  > >  > >> > >> >M > >> > Remember baseball. We've all seen it. The umpire makes a controversial L > >> > call. One of the managers comes out of the dugout and goes to yell atJ > >> > and argue with the ump. Has that ever, even once, changed the ump'sJ > >> > mind? I've never seen it. Even if it has happened, it's certainly a= > >> > tiny minority of all such arguments. So keep it civil.  > >>L > >> Really bad example.  The manager isn't going out there to try to changeM > >> the unpire's mind.  He is going out there to put on a show for the fans. : > >> Afterall, it's all just supposed to be entertainment. > > G > > Pretty lousy "entertainment" if you ask me. I always hated it. It's ' > > BO-RING (pronounced with a long O).  > H > I point to your comment above about TOS.  Several million people don'tB > agree with you.  :-) (I do, but what do I count for, anyway....)  E You mean the fans actually enjoy the futile arguing? The game is slow A enough as it is! At least in TOS there is almost always something E happening. (Maybe it would help if the baseball manager threw in some  jokes!)    >  > > J > > So you think yelling and arguing with HP management is going to do any  > > good? I said *if* you write. > G > I didn't say that.  My point is that writing at all is a total waster E > of time unless you are one of those multi-million (billion?) dollar C > accounts.  And even then, at this point in time, I am not sure it  > would have any effect.  A You're probably right. But a very small chance is still not zero.    >  > bill >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   AEF    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:23:09 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> # Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support Issues 9 Message-ID: <ub-dnQ6Hx9yBsPbYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:  I >> So you think yelling and arguing with HP management is going to do any  >> good? I said *if* you write.  > G > I didn't say that.  My point is that writing at all is a total waster E > of time unless you are one of those multi-million (billion?) dollar C > accounts.  And even then, at this point in time, I am not sure it  > would have any effect. >  > bill >   H Bill, you're just having some fun here, and it's not productive.  (Then & again, that's not the purpose of fun.)  C Any serious businessman always keeps his options open, not burning  D bridges and such.  A serious businessman with a problem will do the 
 following:  . 1) politely discuss the issue with the vendor.  A 2) A bit more forcefully, but still politely, discuss the issue,  ! possibly mentioning alternatives.   I 3) still politely inform the vendor things must improve or a change will   be made.  I 4) still politely make the change, with the understanding that if things  * improve he might reconsider and come back.   Two things.    1) politely    2) gradual escalation     If you're a serious businessman.   --  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: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:30:42 -0500 > From: "Island Computers, D B Turner" <dturner-at-islandco.com>% Subject: Re: optimal drives for HSG80 0 Message-ID: <12mm154jprhvde2@news.supernews.com>   You'll need the DS-RZ1FC-VW      36.4GB 10KRPM U2/U3 SBB   ? We have them in stock right now on special for November at $199      David    --   Island Computers US Corp 2700 Gregory St  Savannah GA 31404  Tel: 912 447 6622 x201# Mail: dturner-atnospam-islandco-com % (You know what to do with the dashes) 5 "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos-remove.com> wrote in message # news:op.tjkw23a5tte90l@hyrrokkin... 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: 27 Nov 2006 12:52:48 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)D Subject: Re: Re[2]: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC0 Message-ID: <4t05d0F11gokfU1@mid.individual.net>  : In article <s8idnVDMFrxXM_TYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,5 	pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes: > > In article <44fb1727$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,* > Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>D >>"Valentin Likoum" <valentin.likoum@ncc.volga.ru> wrote in message / >>news:975987375.20060903203706@ncc.volga.ru... 8 >>> On 03/09/06 Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>> J >>>> To your point, I remember hearing DEC people talking about cloned VAXJ >>>> hardware showing up in Russia as one of the reasons for licence PAKs. >>> G >>> If it's true then it didn't help much. I worked on the VAX hardware E >>> clone with the VMS clone (4.?) with the RDB and DECForms and many D >>> other software pieces I can't recall. And I can't remeber I ever! >>> bothered with the PAKs there.  >>>  >>> --   >>> Best regards,  >>> Valentin+ >>> valentin.likoum at ncc dot volga dot ru  >>> M >>I don't remember using the $LIC command on VMS 4.x but seem to remember it  N >>appearing during VMS 5.x. Maybe someone else in this newsgroup can remember  >>the exact release. >>O >>As for cloning VAXs, people at DEC should consider this the greatest form of   >>flattery.  >> >>Neil Rieck >>Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  >>Ontario, Canada.: >>http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html >> >> >  >  > We did...  > 0 > At least the DEC guys at uVax chip design did. > C > http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html has the  > following: > H > " We stumbled across this message while examining the scribe lane on aG > Digital CVAX microprocessor used in the MicroVAX 3000 and 6200 series H > computers. Chip designer Bob Supnik tells us that the text is Cyrillic% > using Russian words for the phrase: 6 > "VAX - when you care enough to steal the very best " > J > Apparently this quotation was gleaned from a sign on a purloined VAX 780H > used by the Soviet military and was intended to send a special messageD > to Russian chip designers determined to reverse engineer Digital's > designs."   ? I can't imagine why they would waste all that time and effort.  > Even during the peak of the cold war years the USSR was having? no problem getting real VAXen shipped behind the Iron Curtain.  = And, to add insult to injury, while our allies in Europe were A not allowed to have real Unix (the one with DES in the encryption > algorithm) the Russians had no problem buying it inside the USA through front companies and then carrying it home in a diplomatic ; pouch!! (This came out after the fall of the Iron Curtain!)    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: 27 Nov 2006 05:32:55 -0800' From: "LakeGator" <LakeGator@gmail.com> D Subject: Re: Re[2]: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DECB Message-ID: <1164634375.889678.11390@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>  E If the USSR was not very interested in obtaining the VAX designs then F they did a great job of pretending they did.  I was the system managerC for the Digital booth at Telecom '83 in Geneva.  The Russians had a F crew of people who visited the booth almost every day taking still and? video photos of the VAX and PRO-350 systems in the booth.  They D requested that we open the cabinets and remove boards for viewing so< they could photograph them which we politely declined to do.  E Obviously, images of the boards and board layout is far from allowing C one to replicate the complete system but the USSR spent many person C hours trying to get any design information they could at this trade F show.  Maybe all they wanted was to maintain the systems they obtained1 via other sources but  their focus seemed deeper.   C It may have been a waste of their time but they did expend a lot of  effort at this one event.    Bill Gunshannon wrote:< > In article <s8idnVDMFrxXM_TYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,7 > 	pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes:  > @ > I can't imagine why they would waste all that time and effort.@ > Even during the peak of the cold war years the USSR was having@ > no problem getting real VAXen shipped behind the Iron Curtain.? > And, to add insult to injury, while our allies in Europe were C > not allowed to have real Unix (the one with DES in the encryption @ > algorithm) the Russians had no problem buying it inside the USC > through front companies and then carrying it home in a diplomatic = > pouch!! (This came out after the fall of the Iron Curtain!)  >  > bill >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Nov 2006 08:14:44 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 6 Subject: Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales3 Message-ID: <JfJKq6rwxrQP@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <S359h.24061$E02.9850@newsb.telia.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes: > * > Who cares (from a VMS point of view) ???% > VMS is not a workstation-OS anyway.   <    You want to tell that to all my workstations running VMS?  E    VMS is scalable across the line.  I wish X11 weren't so heavy, but     it works.   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:07:28 +0000 (UTC) ( From: m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer)6 Subject: Re: The Register and Gartner on Itanium sales5 Message-ID: <ekeuvg$g6m$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>   2 In article <S359h.24061$E02.9850@newsb.telia.net>,N =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?=   <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes: > * > Who cares (from a VMS point of view) ???% > VMS is not a workstation-OS anyway.  >  > Jan-Erik.   ( but it used to be, a long long time ago.' At least it was used as sales argument.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:29:28 +0100 ( From: MIchael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de>= Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC / Message-ID: <eke7jq$313$02$1@news.t-online.com>    William Pechter schrieb: >  > Actually around 1987...     9 that's 20 years ago and therefore as much history as 197x    > 5 > Major and economically relevant since the 1990's... ( > Small list of Unix vendors since then.  I well around 1990 there might have been about one or two dozen of them ...  > H > Let's see... we're down to about...7 (I guess the smaller ones weren't > "economically relevant." > I > SCO, SUN, IBM, HP-UX, DEC, DG and NCR (maybe).  (NCR charged for TCP/IP  > IIRC)   D and now there are three, in alphabetical order: AIX, Linux, Solaris. But what does that mean ? D IIRC the original point was the claim that one isn't better off withD Unix as far as TCP/IP integration is concerned. This might have beenE true for some long forgotten Unices of the 80s or 70s, but isn't true B anymore since at least the 1990's, no matter how many of them have survived till now.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Nov 2006 08:39:42 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) = Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC 3 Message-ID: <tWsuKVNBZd8L@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <1GK9h.58035$Ib.50385@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> writes:  > G > Then I am out of date. It's some time since I used VMS in anger, but  I > still have fond memories of years spent programming macro11, 32, Vax C  J > etc.  I think there was an dec bias against unix and anything connected C > and this was reflected in the grudging support for tcp/ip, the C   > language etc.   F    Grudge against UNIX?  Is that why they made a BSD UNIX available onG    every model VAX they sold?  Grudge against C?  They had a C compiler )    before ANSI had a C language standard.   E    That wasn't the same as the toys you were used to playing on?  The E    decisions were market driven.  The toys didn't start to influcence     the markey untill later.    4 > VMS is a brilliant os, but the world has moved on.  F    The world has never caught up.  Other OS may be good enough in manyH    ways, but not one of them can do the things we use VMS for every day.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Nov 2006 08:29:48 -0800 From: davidc@montagar.com = Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC C Message-ID: <1164644988.650532.217340@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    ChrisQuayle wrote:J > >    The world has never caught up.  Other OS may be good enough in manyL > >    ways, but not one of them can do the things we use VMS for every day. > >  > D > For example ?. Preferably something unique and not something whereF > others offer functional equivalence. Perhaps I should have said "The% > rest of the world has caught up"...   = "Clustering" comes to mind... VMS is still the gold standard.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:56:52 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> = Subject: RE: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC T Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B868401DCE094@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----; > From: davidc@montagar.com [mailto:davidc@montagar.com]=20 " > Sent: November 27, 2006 11:30 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ? > Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC  >=20 > ChrisQuayle wrote:@ > > >    The world has never caught up.  Other OS may be good=20 > enough in manyB > > >    ways, but not one of them can do the things we use VMS=20 > for every day. > > >  > > F > > For example ?. Preferably something unique and not something whereH > > others offer functional equivalence. Perhaps I should have said "The' > > rest of the world has caught up"...  >=20? > "Clustering" comes to mind... VMS is still the gold standard.  >=20  G Yes, every release of every OS on every platform gets better (something C is really wrong if it does not) with each new release, but as David + mentioned, the bar keeps getting raised.=20    Re: clustering - reference: C http://h30097.www3.hp.com/unix/illuminata_dt_unix_research_note.pdf    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:10:13 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>= Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC ) Message-ID: <ekf65o$19cm$1@pyrite.mv.net>    ChrisQuayle wrote: > Bob Koehler wrote: ... E >>    You never heard of IBM?  Sometimes to link two of their systems F >>    together, they'd sell you software for both of their systems andH >>    a VAX to sit between.  They sure as heck didn't include networkingF >>    with their mainframe OS, they didn't even include timesharing or1 >>    batch processing, everything was an option.  > I > Irrespective of what was happening with mainframes, it was quite clear  G > to anyone with a clue that once the internet achieved critical mass,  7 > tcp/ip networking would become the dominant standard.     F    Irrespective of what is now obvious with hindsight, at the time it I wasn't clear if IP or OSI (or X.25 or...) was going to be the choice for  B the network.  It also wasn't clear that the Internet was going to E explode -- well, prior to Tim Berners-Lee's little invention, though  E once we saw that...  It also wasn't clear that the widespread use of  H DECnet would be replaced by IP -- there were private networks with tens E of thousands of DECnet nodes around at that time.  (This is also the  C downside of an installed base that I've mentioned -- as for when a  I product transitions from an extra-cost product to a table-stakes product  H is always an interesting choice and a tricky decision.)  OpenVMS TCP/IP H got its start in the fall of 1988, which was just after the time of the F big-seven TLD transition.   (I'm old enough to have had an ARPA email B address, something now long unknown to most Internet users.)  The H Internet marketing started in earnest around 1985 -- SNMP didn't appear G until 1987.  There were all of 100000 hosts in 1989, up from 28,000 in  A 1987.  Major Internet backbones were T1 lines.  Though yes, once  I something reaches critical mass, it's catch-up time -- which is itself a  F real problem -- if you're not already apace in the game.  OpenVMS was J obviously late to the game, first having TCP/IP (UCX) in the fall of 1988.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:10:44 -0500 ) From: "Ken Robinson" <kenrbnsn@gmail.com> = Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC H Message-ID: <7dd80f60611271010n47106ceco1d0dd9eb34777305@mail.gmail.com>  P On 11/27/06, Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@hoffmanlabs-removethis-.org> wrote (in part):I > is always an interesting choice and a tricky decision.)  OpenVMS TCP/IP I > got its start in the fall of 1988, which was just after the time of the G > big-seven TLD transition.   (I'm old enough to have had an ARPA email C > address, something now long unknown to most Internet users.)  The I > Internet marketing started in earnest around 1985 -- SNMP didn't appear H > until 1987.  There were all of 100000 hosts in 1989, up from 28,000 inB > 1987.  Major Internet backbones were T1 lines.  Though yes, onceJ > something reaches critical mass, it's catch-up time -- which is itself aG > real problem -- if you're not already apace in the game.  OpenVMS was L > obviously late to the game, first having TCP/IP (UCX) in the fall of 1988.  B I was working at Bellcore (read mostly UNIX on the network) in theF 1980's (84 - 91) and I remember installing a 3rd party TCP/IP stack onE VMS. I believe the name was Fusion and it was very UNIX oriented with = regard to it's set up. I believe this was in the 1985 or 1986 
 timeframe.  A I, too, once had an email address that was used in the UUCP world C where you had to know the all the machines in the path between your  machine and the recipients.    Ken    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:30:37 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> = Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC 9 Message-ID: <7YCdncn6uq5Bs_bYnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@libcom.com>    ChrisQuayle wrote:  4 > VMS is a brilliant os, but the world has moved on.  F I sit here reading this sentence and I haven't a clue.  Just what the " hell is the above suppost to mean?  @ 1) the world doesn't need brilliant anymore?  (back to the cave)  , 2) windoze is more brilliant?  (yeah, right)   --  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: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:37:52 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> = Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC 9 Message-ID: <TIGdnYdCgoQTrfbYnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@libcom.com>    ChrisQuayle wrote: > Bob Koehler wrote:G >>  In article <1157625228.266480.263480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, 0 >>  Andrew <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> wrote: >> >>G >>> However there is a difference here, no other vendor charged for the G >>> basic networking software required to link two or more systems from G >>> different vendors together except DEC, the norm for the rest of the 9 >>> industry was that this was part of the base platform.  >>>  >>> Regards  >>> Andrew Harrison  >> >>E >>    You never heard of IBM?  Sometimes to link two of their systems F >>    together, they'd sell you software for both of their systems andH >>    a VAX to sit between.  They sure as heck didn't include networkingF >>    with their mainframe OS, they didn't even include timesharing or1 >>    batch processing, everything was an option.  > I > Irrespective of what was happening with mainframes, it was quite clear  G > to anyone with a clue that once the internet achieved critical mass,  7 > tcp/ip networking would become the dominant standard.  >  >>> G >>>    Get real.  Computing did not start when Sun first booted its BSD D >>>    UNIX on a 68K.  DEC and other vendors were selling networking >>>    before Sun existed. >>>  > E > Absolutely, but they had a better vision than most of where client  , > server computing and networking was going.  H 'Leader' - definition, someone who see which way the mob is going, runs # to the front and yells "follow me".   0 But, in business, not a bad way of doing things.  G > Dec were a true R&D driven company that made innovation successfull,  G > much like the original HP, but marketing was based on a very greedy,  J > grasping business model that put a lot of people off Dec and drove them I > into the likes of Sun forever. I doubt if any of that has changed even  ( > now, after two changes of ownership... >  > Chris   I Now you'll get complete agreement from me.  However, this has nothing to  F do with the quality of VMS.  A prime example was the BI bus and DEC's E "no third parties need apply" attitude, unless one was ready to fork   over lots of license fees.   --  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: 27 Nov 2006 18:40:37 GMT1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) = Subject: Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC 0 Message-ID: <4t0pp4F11i1kvU3@mid.individual.net>  3 In article <l2Cah.24542$E02.10007@newsb.telia.net>, < 	Jan-Erik Sderholm   <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:B > A Swedish guy was caught while trying to ship 2 (I think it was)B > VAX 11/7xx "supercomputers" via Sweden to Russia. It was a major? > scandal at the time. This was complete systems in containers.  >    Many, many moons ago......  ? There was a person who posted a very big explanation of how his ? company was buying VAXen for internal use in Switzerland.  Once D the machines arrived in Switzerland the company would do an internalD corporate transfer to a branch in India.  India had never signed theC trade restriction agreement against the USSR.  The Indian branch of B the company would then sell the box to Russia.  The guy was ratherG proud of the fact that they were pulling this off in front of everyone. G So, makes you wonder why the Russians would even consider cloning which ? was bound to cost more and always leave them behind the current B technology in the rest of the world.  Of course, it also brings toD mind the quote, "With friends like these....." in regards India. :-)B Couldn't be trusted then, can't be trusted now.  Some things never change.    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: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:44:01 -0500 8 From: Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org>; Subject: Re: Using SYS$INPUT for input into an FTP command. ) Message-ID: <eketjj$16up$1@pyrite.mv.net>   
 Ade wrote:  N > Thanks for the reply. I did actually try the copy/ftp method but found that G > the file on the target end (an IBM MVS system) retained the original  O > filename in the dataset rather than the one I specified in the command. This   > led me to look elsewhere.   G    A few approaches: quote the target filename (particularly if you're  G using non-OpenVMS-native file names as these would get derailed in the  F DCL parsing), or rename it and then transfer, or transfer it and then  use ssh or such to rename.  C    IIRC, the TCP/IP release here is sufficiently far back that any  F errant behaviour would require replication on a more current release, I but I'd tend to expect any weird characters in the target filename to be  : flagged with errors -- unless those characters are quoted.  L > As far as the networking side of things go, we have absolutely no control 9 > over it, hence the scramble to find a working solution.   D    Do ensure those higher in the management chain are aware of this C situation.   If I were so inclined, I might add mention that Cisco  H routers (and most any other router I've encountered) can deal with this J sort of non-IP traffic, and have been able to for, well, a decade or more.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:27:06 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>  Subject: RE: VMS in The DAT Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B868401DCE01F@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----> > From: William Pechter [mailto:pechter@pechter.dyndns.org]=20" > Sent: November 26, 2006 10:09 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  > Subject: Re: VMS in The DA >=20  	 [snip ..]    >=205 > 'Course now you could run MUMPS er -- M on Linux...  >=20 > Bill >=20 > --=20  > --=20   G Yep, similar to Windows, with Linux environments, you just need to plan D to integrate the QA/Testing of 5-20 security patches per month  intoH your monthly testing plans with all of your important applications. I amG sure the BU's supported would have no problems giving up trivial things G like new application functionality testing so that the monthly platform F security patches could be re-tested every month with all the important) apps before being rolled into production.   
 Reference:6 https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/2 [click on "thread" for each month and add them up]   :-)    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:34:22 GMT 1 From: Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> ) Subject: Re: volume shadowing over LAVC ? 2 Message-ID: <ykFah.2847$de6.2591@news.cpqcorp.net>   Richard B. Gilbert wrote: M > ISTR that you need a license for each machine in the cluster for each disk.   G You have a choice of either per-disk (with unlimited numbers of nodes)  F or per-node (with unlimited numbers of disks) licenses; one option or F the other may be less expensive in a given case, depending on cluster # node count and shadowed disk count.   K > Also, since volume shadowing is software based, you place additional CPU   > load on your cluster.   F When folks have said "software RAID has a lot of CPU overhead" it was F probably RAID-5 which was meant. Calculating Exclusive-ORs for RAID-5 I parity on writes takes a lot of host CPU overhead. Deciding which of the  E shadowset members to send a read to, or simply duplicating an IRP to  A send a write to all shadowset members, adds very little host CPU  I overhead. Even a shadow full-copy or full-merge doesn't typically take a   lot of CPU time.  E > When a cluster member crashes, the shadowset has to be checked for  K > consistancy, block by block.  It takes a while.  And your cluster is dog   > slow while it's going on.   G The Host-Based Mini-Merge capability introduced in version 7.3-2 seems  7 to solve this problem, from what I hear from customers.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.653 ************************                                                                          vcv()		S_new_xpvcv(aTHX)
#define new_xpvav()		S_new_xpvav(aTHX)
#define new_xpvhv()		S_new_xpvhv(aTHX)
#define new_xpvmg()		S_new_xpvmg(aTHX)
#define new_xpvlv()		S_new_xpvlv(aTHX)
#define new_xpvbm()		S_new_xpvbm(aTHX)
#define new_xrv()		S_new_xrv(aTHX)
#define del_xiv(a)		S_del_xiv(aTHX_ a)
#define del_xnv(a)		S_del_xnv(aTHX_ a)
#define del_xpv(a)		S_del_xpv(aTHX_ a)
#define del_xpviv(a)		S_del_xpviv(aTHX_ a)
#define del_xpvnv(a)		S_del_xpvnv(aTHX_ a)
#define del_xpvcv(a)		S_del_xpvcv(aTHX_ a)