test-drb February 2000

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

162 participants
585 discussions

Document scanning questions (beating a dead horse?)

by af-list＠wfi-inc.com

I know we've discussed this ad nauseum here, but I had a specific question for those who have a little more experience with scanning documents. What I'm interested in doing is creating searchable, text-imbedded pdf files as well as tiff files. For those who've done this, could you give me a little rundown on the process you used? I've got Acrobat 3.0, which works fine to produce image-only pdf files that are, incidentally, slightly bigger than that source tiff files. So far I've been scanning bi-tonal at 300dpi, which seemed to me to provide the best quality/size ratio for the image files. Any help at all with this would be much appreciated... Aaron

25 years

Docs for TC31?

by af-list＠wfi-inc.com

Hi all, Kind of a blah trip for me to TRW this month; last time I had almost no money and there was a bunch of stuff I wanted, this time I went loaded and only bought two extender boards for $1 each. Hmph. However, I did get to meet up with Marvin and Eliot Moore, from whom I acquired a couple of nifty qbus boards...one of which is an Emulex TC31. Does anyone have any documentation for this board, or have a minute to run over the dip switches for me? As always, help is much appreciated... Cheers, Aaron

25 years

INTERSIL ICL7601CPD info needed

by Mzthompson＠aol.com

"Bill Dawson" <whdawson(a)mlynk.com> wrote: > I just obtained a box of goodies, and these Intersil ICL7601CPD 14 pin > ceramic dips were in the lot. I can't seem to locate any information on > them. Can anyone give me a clue? It is an Op-Amp, officially listed as Commutating Auto-Zero (CAZ) Operational Amplifier. It is listed in their 1979 databook. 1 C1 Capacitor across pins 1/2 2 C1 3 +IN 4 AZ Auto-Zero 5 -IN 6 C2 Capacitor across pins 6/7 7 C2 8 V- 9 Bias 10 Output 11 V+ 12 OSC 13 n/c 14 DR V+/V- supply up to +/- 18 volts HTH Mike

25 years

UPDATE: Selling Collection

by jpl15＠netcom.com

Here it is, 24 hours down the log. I have recieved quite a few thoughtful e-mails from various Folk on this List: Thank you all. I have given even *more* thought to my situation here, in light of various developments, and will try an experiment, vizt., I will dump some of the Junk... and believe me some of it's no more than scrap.... list to follow. ;} I will place some items in a long-term storage facility that I have currently warehousing one of my oldest 'dormant' hobbies... my lovely ten-rank pipe organ, which come to think of it, would probably fit where the computers are now.... no, forget it. I will concentrate on a few systems, and NOT collect any more stuff for the nonce. The offer to sell my Vintage Computer Collection is hereby withdrawn, and again, my great "thank yous" to all who responded. It was a valuable exercise for me, if nothing else. Guess I'm a hard core mainline computer junkie. The MINC is *still* going to CCHM. sigh. Cheers John

25 years

OT: Mail servers changes (INFO)

by wrm＠ccii.co.za

Hi all >Lots of sites are starting to refuse mail from open relays. Your ISP is >going to have to come up with a better solution. I'm --><-- this close to blocking mail from all of .co.jp Open relays, *nobody* seems to have an abuse@ address, and we don't have customers over there anyway. :-) But I'll probably use the open relay database... W

25 years

[OT] Re: DSL Coming -- I may need help! : My ranting :)

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.com

Jay wrote >Bruce wrote... >> connection! It'll be (minimum) 256K up/downstream guaranteed, and those >> rates could fluctuate a bit depending on the usual variables. >Um... you might want to check the fine print on the DSL service agreement. I agree fully here! There's vast differences between DSL service from different suppliers. The el-cheapo suppliers might route all of your traffic to the other side of the continent and back before it goes anywhere. (Flashcom does this, for example.) The really good providers have real service level agreements, guaranteed time commitments, and other frills. (My DSL carrier, UUNet, will call me within a few minutes if for any reason they are unable to ping my DSL router. So whenever the power is out, or I'm just moving some wires here in the shop, I know who's going to be the first to call me.) (Another top-notch DSL provider is Savvis.) Also thoroughly check out your options in terms of multiple static IP's, etc., if this is important to you. These aren't important issues to folks who are using a PC-clone to surf the web over a DSL line, but if you want to hook older machines to your LAN to get to the outside world through DSL you do need to pay attention here. -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927

25 years

OT: Mail servers changes (INFO)

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Feb 28, 19:49, Jay West wrote: > Pete wrote.... > > My ISP runs two SMTP mail servers, one open, the other not; > Open relays have NOTHING to do with the above situation - talk about > throwing the baby out with the bathwater - the above scenario is akin to > saying "gee, I want to allow http through my firewall, so lets just open the > firewall up for all ports and all services to and from anywhere". Well, maybe, which is why the European ISPs (and mine in particular) are looking for another method. As more and more sites use MAPS or other services, the need for a better solution becomes greater. > There are two other much more "standard" methods of allowing the above. > First, the user could still check his email at his original/local provider > via pop or imap, they do that anyway -- *receiving* mail isn't part of the problem. > and he could send mail from the smtp server at his > nonlocal/traveling provider. But it would have the "wrong" address, and lots of people can't seem to cope with that. > Second, any time an ISP sets up an agreement > with another ISP to let their users roam, they could just add the roaming > ISP's domain name to their sendmail.cw file to allow relaying from that > domain only. Agreed, but we're talking about hundreds of ISPs, not just a few. And for reasons I've never really understood, quite a number of European ISPs, including one of the biggest UK providers, don't provide DNS PTR records for their dialups (so authentication is more difficult). I'm not personally advocating the use of open relays, BTW. The servers I help manage are not open, because we were hit a long time ago. I'm merely pointing out an instance where a bunch of ISPs have seen them as an interim solution -- and issue warnings to roaming users that some of their mail may bounce because recipient servers may block them. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

25 years

OT: Mail servers changes (INFO)

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Feb 29, 0:53, Eric Smith wrote: > Pete writes: > > My ISP runs two SMTP mail servers, one open, the other not; > This can be solved by having your POP or IMAP daemon open up temporary > access to your SMTP server from the roaming IP address after the POP or > IMAP connection is authenticated. This is what I do for some of my users. > If you use qmail there's a readymade program available, but it should be > easy to set it up for Sendmail. That's one of the methods being trialled by my ISP (they use Exim for (E)SMTP). They'r also loking at some sort of password-based authentication but I don't know how that works. > Another approach is for the "roaming" relay to only accept email with both > envelope sender and from headers of legitimate customers. This isn't as > secure, but is still much better than a wide-open relay. If a spammer > discovers the relay by scanning IP addresses for SMTP ports, they still > won't be able to use it unless they also can determine who the legitimate > users of that SMTP server are. True, but that requires spoofing the envelope sender address, which isn't so easy to do on some systems. It also requires even more setup for the ISP than Jay's suggestion of adding domains to sendmail.cw. I know of one common SMTP package (Mercury, for Novell) that allows a simpler system. It's much less secure, because it doesn't really check the addresses; it merely relies on the From address matching the server's own domain. Needless to say, that's easy for anyone -- including a spammer -- to spoof. > > However, until there's a sensible system to deal with roaming users' need to > > send mail as well as receive it, there will be open relays. > > Lots of sites are starting to refuse mail from open relays. Your ISP is > going to have to come up with a better solution. Indeed, and they are looking. IPv6 should eventually remove the problem, of course, but that's some way off. Anyone know the number of the RFC for roaming IP, which Shawn mentioned? I'd like to take a look at it. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

25 years

INTERSIL ICL7601CPD info needed

by edick＠idcomm.com

Harris recently spun the Intersil division off into its own entity. Believe it or not, you may find data at www.intersil.com. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Bill Dawson <whdawson(a)mlynk.com> To: Classiccmp@Classiccmp. Org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Date: Monday, February 28, 2000 9:00 PM Subject: INTERSIL ICL7601CPD info needed >Hello all, > >I just obtained a box of goodies, and these Intersil ICL7601CPD 14 pin >ceramic dips were in the lot. I can't seem to locate any information on >them. Can anyone give me a clue? > >BTW, also in the box were a bunch of common NOS (mid 1970s era) TTL, 2 Zilog >Z-80s, and a National Semi DT1050 Digitalker Standard Vocabulary Kit still >in the original NS box in an antistat bag, along with the DT1050 docs > >Thanks, > >Bill > >whdawson(a)mlynk.com > >

25 years

[OT] Re: DSL Coming -- I may need help! : My ranting :)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<compete for bandwidth availability. As a result, DSL speed guarantees have <absolutely NOTHING to do with the internet speed you get. I won't go into <examples, but I'm sure many folks here will immediately see the <ramifications of this. Think of a file download where each packet comes at <256k but there's 300ms pauses between each packet! I already hit sites like that with my 33.6 modem. My take is the path is as good as the narrowest point and likely the DSL connection is not that choke point. Allison

25 years

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
59
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb February 2000