test-drb January 2021

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

114 participants
96 discussions

by jwest＠classiccmp.org

Anyone know who did/does the Altair peripheral emulator (not to be confused with the other APE, for Atari)? Originator give me a ring on email or via discord please ? J

3 years, 3 months

Setting switches for a Vertex 150 possibly for a perq

by cz＠alembic.crystel.com

Hi! I'm trying to read possible Perq2 data off a 40mb Vertex V150 drive. Unfortunately the switches were scrambled and I can't seem to figure out which settings work. Does anyone have one that can check their switch settings? This doesn't seem to work: https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/hard-drives-hdd/vertex/V150-43MB-5-25-FH-MFM-S…

3 years, 3 months

Emails going to spam folder in gmail

by cctalk＠gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net

On 1/3/21 8:40 AM, Peter Coghlan wrote: > Grant, Hi Peter, > Do you think it is likely that an email address like > check212014 at gmail.com is used by an actual real person for their > personal email? I absolutely do. > Multiply the odds of the above by the odds that some spammer > or other individual of malicious intent has had the capability, > the persistence, tenacity and sheer ill will in them that it would > take to carry out a vendetta against poor old check212014 at gmail.com > for five long years, not to mention that when they only succeeed in > causing check212014 at gmail.com any actual difficulty is on the rare > occasions that their trawl of mail servers of the internet manages > to turn up an actual open mail relay? I know multiple people that have signed victims up to mailing lists -- many of which were questionable content -- as an attack on said victims. Pretending to send email from said victims to cause bounces and ire to be (mis)directed at them seems quite the same to me. Five years? Sure. Many people will create filters and simply ignore the messages. As such, it's effectively internet background radiation / wasted bits. > Whack-a-Mole works when everyone whacks their moles. When one major > property owner decides they aren't going to whack the moles in their > garden when all the neighbours keep theirs under control, they are > going to end up with all the moles in their lawn. (We don't have > real live moles in the part of the world were I am so please forgive > me if my analogy is not accurate due to my lack of familiarity with > the species.) > > I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that check212014 at gmail.com is > doing nothing that violates Google's terms of service for using Gmail, So ... by your own words, there is nothing that Google should be doing per their terms of service. > which indicates to me that the terms of service are flawed because > they allow someone to use Google's infrastructure to scan for open > relays to exploit as spam delivery platforms. As far as I know, > no other email provider allows this. I've not seen anything in any provider's terms of service that say anything about what type of email they receive, save for exceedingly few categories; child porn and illegal activity among the short list. I have yet to see anybody state that sending an email to an invalid email address and (potentially) receiving a bounce is illegal. So, again, no grounds for Google to do anything. Feel free to try to get Google to change their terms of service. > I don't see how this relates to Google allowing their services to > be used to test my mail server (and likely thousands of others too) > numerous times over multiple years for being an open relay that could > be exploited to distribute spam. Are the messages /originating/ from Google / Gmail? Or are the messages /originating/ from somewhere else and causing the bounces to go to Google / Gmail? The former is something Google cares about. The latter quite likely is not. > If you burn a junk (snail) mail, could there be a security lapse in > your furnace that would cause it to be replicated into a thousand > copies of itself, run up your chimney and distribute itself into > thousands of your neighbours letterboxes? If not, I think you can > rest easy in the knowledge that you are not causing the problem. The /recipient/ of the messages is *not* the problem. The /source/ of the messages *is* the problem. What is done with what is received is independent of the source of the problem. > Nothing. The problem is with the terms of service. This is where > the evil is. See above regarding terms of service. > I feel obliged to try suggestions made in good faith, if nothing > else just to prove they don't work. I made one general report > regarding the issues with check212014 at gmail.com over the last > five years using the form Mike suggested. Since then, there have > been two further attempts to relay mail through my mail server to > check212014 at gmail.com. I have made two specific reports using the > form Mike suggested, providing all the details I have available to me. Good for you. Thank you for trying to maintain the high road. > Interestingly, both attempts were made from 37.46.150.239. Full stop. 37.46.150.239 is *NOT* Google IP address space. According to WhoIs, that address space belongs to Serverion BV. So, chances are quite good that your reports to Google are going to be silently dismissed because the source of the abuse does not originate >from Google resources. If anything, Google's user is also a victim. > The abuse contact email address for 37.46.150.239 listed in > whois.ripe.net is abuse at serverion.com. I have had reason to send 13 > reports of abuse of my systems by various Serverion BV ip addresses to > abuse at serverion.com during December alone. I have had zero response > from them and the abuse from their ip address range continues daily. Sadly, many companies leave a LOT to be desired when it comes to abuse handling, especially when the abuse originates from their organization. If you routinely have problems with Serverion, then I suggest you consider blocking them. > Guess who handles the mail service for abuse at serverion.com? > Who enables Serverion BV to drop abuse reports in the bitbucket > more likely. That's right, Google mail services. Why is this not > a surprise to me? Who handles Serverion's incoming email has exceedingly little to with who's responsible for traffic originating from Serverion's network. > Regards, Likewise. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

3 years, 3 months

Diomidis Spinellis blog: Reviving the 1973 Unix text to voice translator

by rdbrown0au＠gmail.com

https://www.spinellis.gr/blog/20210102/ https://github.com/dspinellis/speak (Votrax phoneme output)

3 years, 3 months

Ouch, but 2 Perqs out.

by cz＠alembic.crystel.com

This was a long day. Went over to the house and started working on getting the Perqs out of the basement. I've been moving smaller stuff to make room and it was time. First up was a Perq1 chassis that just had the big disk drive in it, side and rear panels. I figured it was lightest and after taking off the sides and top was able to lift it and carry it up steps. Still heavy and bulky, but it made room and a path to get to the second one. The second one was a mess but a lot heavier: It still had the card cage in it and I was not going to be able to lift. So I figured out how to take the sides, top, front, back, and bottom (pounds are made of ounces) and then spottted the screws that hold the card cage and power supply in the box. Bless the people at perq, those two screws out and you can lift the cage out the side of the box. The card cage without cards (took them out to lighten) was heavy but I got it up the steps. Then with a herculean amount of effort I managed to carry the rest of the box up, followed by the sides, top, front, back, and bottom plates. There are still two more Perqs down there. They have heavier front plates (I was able to take them off) with real shielding. They were different designs, so they were not Perq1s and they are not the same as each other. Question: Are there any pictures of other types of Perqs? Unfortunately they are still buried under old Sun gear and a Vaxserver of some sort. So I'll have to think about those, but they will need to come apart as well. Question: Do the card cages and stuff come off the later Perqs as well? Also got two different types of keyboards that say Perq, and a monitor that looks like a big fat white Vetrex and says Three Rivers. Question: What does a Perq mouse look like? At least this stuff will not be junked. I'll take pictures and such tomorrow and throw a tarp over everything tonight because I'm too tired to get it out of the truck. I swore off high-mass hobbies for a reason....

3 years, 3 months

Rod Coleman's personal history of founding, building & running SAGE

by boris＠summitclinic.com

Probably read about this machine in Byte back then but was programming PDP-11's. Was very disappointed in IBM PC as IMO was far inferior to PDP-11 which was was easier to interface to data acquisition hardware and had a much nicer instruction set. Ran into 68000 processor for first time in 1986 when my father bought a 512 K Mac and couldn't believe performance of this CPU compared to PDP-11 - 24 bit addressing! and inferior memory access to what Sage had. Also, found 68000 instruction set very similar to PDP-11 and had no trouble writing assembly code for it a few years later and also really liked Apple's debug switch which was best implementation of a debugging system I've thus far run into. Weird that Rod Coleman had 68000 instruction set associated with IBM 370 whereas to me it was very PDP-11 like and 24 bit addressing was a very nice feature (that was one similarity to IBM 360) Other interesting aspect to SAGE history was the influence of September 1966 issue of Scientific American computer issue on Rod Coleman and lots of other people I've talked to. Was so glad that had this issue to read in 1966 and spent most of my time in boring school classes designing logic circuits and then building them at home using discrete DTL logic with parts salvaged from surplus IBM boards. Thanks for the link as didn't realize 68000 was used for home systems before I ran into Mac. >This may be old news -- it was new to me, though. > >https://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/search/label/Booting%20Sage%20Computer > >I'm not really familiar with SAGE machines. They were not as >well-known in the UK, I think, being upmarket from the Apple ][ and >IBM PC, both of which were eye-wateringly expensive by UK standards of >the time. > >Also, they were terminal-based things and even back then I was >interested in boxes with graphics. :-) > >-- >Liam Proven ? Profile: https://about.me/liamproven >Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lproven at gmail.com >Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven ? Skype: liamproven >UK: +44 7939-087884 ? ??R (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 7002 829 053

3 years, 3 months

Winsystems SAT-V40

by doc＠vaxen.net

I know this is a long shot, but I'm asking anyhow. I'm looking for the Ops Manual for a Winsystems single-board system. Model: SAT-V40 P/N: 400-0186-000 The SAT-V41 model is essentially the same board, so I'd settle for docs for that. There are references (from 2012) to SAT-V41.PDF, so I know it at least *did* exist in digital form. If anyone in the US has the paper manual I would happily scan it, and pay postage both ways. Thanks! Doc

3 years, 3 months

TRS-80 Trash Talk Live is Tonight at 9pm EST

by pete＠pski.net

Come join us on Zoom tonight at 9pm EST for our annual end of year show as we engage in a TRS-80 community retrospective of 2020 and talk about where we want to see the community go in 2021. Email for Zoom details: trs80trashtalk at gmail.com <mailto:trs80trashtalk at gmail.com> Or you can watch on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXkGugvdCkpkMDylVQb9gfg <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXkGugvdCkpkMDylVQb9gfg> But, it?s much more fun interacting on Zoom, so join us! You don?t have to be a TRS-80 enthusiast to join. Later, Pete

3 years, 3 months

dp8340n IBM 3270 protocol transmitter encoder

by wh.sudbrink＠verizon.net

Hi, In cleaning up my lab and stores, I have discovered that I have a tube of 10 of these chips. I'm not quite sure what they are for or were used in (or even where I got them). Anyway, if they are, in fact, for managing 3270 mainframe terminal traffic, they're probably not of much use to me. I've also noticed that I'm getting very low in vintage 4000 series CMOS chips. Anybody want to trade? Bill S. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

3 years, 3 months

MM11-F manual/prints available

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

I finally got around to completing the processing of the scanned images of the pages of the MM11-F manual and engineering drawings. A PDF is available here: http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/dload/DEC-11-HMFA-D_MM11-F_Manual.… http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/dload/DEC-11-HMFA-D_MM11-F_Drawing… For those who object to PDF/A, here: http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/dload/MM11-F_Manual.tar http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/dload/MM11-F_Drawings.tar are TARs of the original TIFFs. The images aren't that great, I see; the original paper copies aren't too hot, IIRC. If anyone actually has a use for these (does anyone out there _actually have_ an MM11-F?), and there's a problem, let me know, and once I get my scanner running again, I can try and get better ones. I thought we were missing the MM11-E manual, so since the two are so similar (most of the boards are the same) I thought the MM11-F's would mostly fill the gap, but it appears it's there, prepended to the MM11-E prints. One thing this set has which might be useful is the backplane wirelist (the MM11-E's seems to be missing); given the commonality of most of the boards >from the MM11-E to the MM11-F, they're probably very similar. Noel

3 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

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 January 2021