Does anybody have the actual "QuickTake 150 Windows Connection Kit"
cable? Would you be willing to either trace the pinout or point me at
the _right_ pinouts on the Web?
I've found no less than 3 different pinouts, and the two I've tried
don't work.
Bah!
Doc
> Currently, "[CCTECH]" is prepended to all subject headers sent to cctech.
> Would anyone mind if I lowercased that to "[cctech]"? The capital letters
> seem to be screaming a little too much.
Why not just do away with it?
> Would anyone mind if "[cctalk]" was appended to all subject headers sent to
> cctalk?
I for one definitly mind having [cctalk] appended, it creates a real mess!
Zane
A friend of mine gave me a TeleVideo terminal, and I believe it's a TS-803.
There is no model number listed on the outside of the case, but the board is
labeled 'TS 803'. The DIP switches on this terminal aren't labeled.
Does anybody have any information about the DIP switches?
Thank You,
Frank Denk
frank.denk(a)mccookmetals.com
Hello all,
I just got a DG AViiON AV4300 from a helpful list member (thanks dan!), and I
need to find RAM for it. Now, it appears that it would take PC-ish 72pin
SIMMs -- is this true? If so, what are the details? ECC? Parity? Actually
some crazy DG RAM? I'd love to get this machine running -- it even has a
"monday and wednesday" backup tape still in the drive :)
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
I apologize, but I didn't save the email that told who was
taking over while Jay took a sabatical...
The questions:
Is the email address obfuscation in the archive up and running,
and if not, when will it be? I am preparing to switch to an
new email address, and don't want to provide it to the spammers
directly... I'll wait until the obfuscation is in place before
switching.
Does the list archiver honor the 'X-NoArchive: Yes' line? Can it
be made to? I'd like to be able to announce something (like the
username/password for my private FTP site), but I don't want it
to live forever in the archive. It's unlikely a spider would
find the announcement and I'd get a hacker trying to break in,
but why risc it...
Best Regards,
Clint
Remember those weird RAMs I asked about a week or so back? They are from
an Apple 3 memory upgrade, and being that I don't have an Apple 3, I
don't need them.
So...
The first person with a suitable trade*, bribe, barter, or pile of cash,
gets them. 32 weird chips, in a bag labelled "Tested" (for whatever that
is worth). Email me off list.
*Trade? I like mainframe things - books, parts, software, etc. I also
need R, B, and S series DEC Flip Chips.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
> From: Jeffrey Sharp
>
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, Pete Turnbull wrote:
>
> > > > Does the list archiver honor the 'X-NoArchive: Yes' line?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > As Frank wrote, the normal form is "X-No-Archive: yes".
>
> Yes. That works.
>
> --
>
- If that does prevent a message from being archived, I still think
it's a good idea to send sensitive info directly to people, and _not_
through the lists. What if (as it does happen) someone accidentally replies
to that message, unedited, to the list? It'll get archived anyway.
Or does the "X-No-Archive" line stay in the reply?
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
_______________________________________________
cctech mailing list
cctech(a)classiccmp.org
http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctech
On Jul 8, 19:30, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
> > Does the list archiver honor the 'X-NoArchive: Yes' line?
>
> No.
As Frank wrote, the normal form is "X-No-Archive: yes".
> Would anyone mind if "[cctalk]" was appended to all subject headers sent
to
> cctalk?
I could live with it, but I'd really prefer not to. It's not necessary for
filtering, given that several headers already have th list name in them:
>From cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org Tue Jul 9 06:50:13 2002
To: cctech(a)classiccmp.org
X-BeenThere: cctech(a)classiccmp.org
Sender: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
Errors-To: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
X-BeenThere: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Reply-To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
X-Reply-To: cctech(a)classiccmp.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk>,
<mailto:cctalk-request@classiccmp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Classic Computer Discussion - Unmoderated <cctalk.classiccmp.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cctalk-request@classiccmp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk>,
<mailto:cctalk-request@classiccmp.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/>
These are headers from your post, originally to CCTECH, but you can see
that by the time it was crossposted to CCTALK, most had become CCTALK
headers.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
I just found out my company is planning to scrap a Memorex tape drive,
controller, and power supply, models 8222, 8224, and 8228 tomorrow
(Wednesday, July 10th). It's huge and heavy and located in Lincoln,
Nebraska. If you want it, speak now and I'll try to hold it for you -
otherwise it's going to the scrapper tomorrow.
- My opinions and thoughts are inline...
> From: Jeffrey Sharp
>
> This email contains answers to recent member questions, some new questions
> for members, and news of recent changes.
>
> .. Many
> people include email addresses in their sig blocks or introduce quoted
> text
> with "On mm/dd/yyyy, name <user@domain> wrote:" or similar lines. The
> obfuscator doesn't obfuscate these things, so the whole feature seems
> rather
> worthless to me. The spam-conscious should definitely use a different
> safety
> method.
>
- Keep the obfuscator running anyway...
> ....
>
> NEW QUESTIONS:
>
> Considering how vulnerable it is (see above), would anybody mind if I
> turned
> off the obfuscator?
>
- Yes. Heh, looks like I answered this before you even asked. ;)
> Currently, "[CCTECH]" is prepended to all subject headers sent to cctech.
> Would anyone mind if I lowercased that to "[cctech]"? The capital letters
> seem to be screaming a little too much.
>
- Go ahead. Sounds fine to me.
> Would anyone mind if "[cctalk]" was appended to all subject headers sent
> to
> cctalk?
>
- Hmmm, I recall a bit of noise when it was used originally. Isn't
that why it was killed before? Personally, I don't mind it, though.
> What are our opinions on the two-lists solution?
>
- So far, so good.
> Cctech isn't currently moderated. In fact, it never has been AFAIK. It
> seems
> to have stayed on-topic without moderation. Are we ready for moderation to
> be turned on, or should we consider alternatives?
>
- Keep it as-is. The threat of moderation seems to be working okay. If
it does get out of hand, then turn on the moderation.
> RECENT CHANGES
>
> ...
>
> The date shown for archived posts has been changed from the 'sent' date
> (what the author says the date is) to the 'resent' date (what the
> classiccmp
> server thinks the date is). This will protect our archive from the people
> whose computers think it is 1970.
>
- Ahhh. Consistency is a good thing. :)
Overall, many thanks to those who put in much time keeping these
lists running smoothly.
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
_______________________________________________
cctech mailing list
cctech(a)classiccmp.org
http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctech
