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
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
"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
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withdrawn, and again, my great "thank yous" to all who responded.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
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
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
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
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
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
>
>
<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