test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by rcini＠email.msn.com

Hello, all: Does anyone have info on a Teletek SBC-1 Z80-based single-board computer? Copyright is 1981. It's loaded except for RAM (from what I can see). It has a Z80 CPU, PIO, SIO, and CTC. There are a couple of blank sockets, and a TMM2016P-2 memory chip (a 2716??). It appears to be built on a S-100 card. Thanks! Rich Cini/WUGNET <nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use) ClubWin! Charter Member (6) MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking ============================================

28 years

No subject

by joakimkjellander＠hotmail.com

Dear sir`s. I want to move a harddisk from a PCXT to a PCAT and add it to the existing harddisk in my PCAT. Do you know how that can be done? With kind regards. Joaki Kjellander. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

28 years

First speaker announced for VCF2

by dastar＠wco.com

The first speaker has been confirmed for VCF2 this September. David Rutland was an engineer on a lesser known but very significant computer dedicated in 1950 called the SWAC (National Bureau of Standards Western Automatic Computer). You can check out his bio on the Vintage Computer Festival web page: http://www.siconic.com/vcf Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't blame me...I voted for Satan. Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0 See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details! [Last web page update: 04/25/98]

28 years

Replies to various threads

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 25, 1:39, Tony Duell wrote: > Allison wrote: > > I have: 1802, SC/MP, 6800, 6809, NEC D78PG11, 8748/9, 8751, 8080/8085, > > z80, z180, z280, z8002, z8001, 808x, 8018x, 80286, 80386, 80486 and the > > micro version of minis 6100(pdp-8), 6120(PDP-8+EMA) TI9900, PDP11(T-11, > > F11, J-11). > Let's see how I do : > > Ones I have : (possibly embedded, but I've designed machines round a > number of these...) > > SC/MP, 8008, 8080, 1802, 8085, Z80, 64180, 8086, 8088, 80286, 80386, 80486, > 68000, 68010, 68020, 68040, T212 (or maybe T225), T425, T801, T805, > PIC16C84, PIC17C42, F11, J11, 6502, 6809, 6800, 6803, 4040, 8048 (and > 8035), 8051 (and 8031, 8032), ARM2, ARM3, R2000, 6120, Z8001, 32016, 2901 > etc (does that count), 3001 etc (ditto), and doubtless more that I've > forgotten... I can't beat that... 8008, 8085, 8088, 8086, 80186, 80286, 80386, 80486, V20, Z80, Z8, Z8001 (but in foam, not a system), 6502, 65C12, 6800, 6809 (in foam), 68HC11, 8032, 8035, 8048, 68000, 68010, 68020, assorted PICs, ARM2, ARM3, R4600, Sparc, 2901, D11, F11, T11, J11, 6100, and probably a few embedded "things" and others I've forgotten, but I wouldn't claim to have programmed all of them. However, what's surprising about these lists is not what's there, but what's missing. What's a 3001, BTW? -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

About the Wang '669 patent

by dwollmann＠ibmhelp.com

At 09:50 PM 4/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Zane H. Healy wrote: > [snippies] > >What makes you think the Evil Empire is behind this? Did Microsoft buy >Wang recently? If not, they'll get hit with the same suit. > [s] >-- Doug Have a look at http://www.mozilla.org/.

28 years

Replies to various threads

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<> Allison wrote: <> > I have: 1802, SC/MP, 6800, 6809, NEC D78PG11, 8748/9, 8751, 8080/8085 <> > z80, z180, z280, z8002, z8001, 808x, 8018x, 80286, 80386, 80486 and t <> > micro version of minis 6100(pdp-8), 6120(PDP-8+EMA) TI9900, PDP11(T-1 <> > F11, J-11). By and large including the 8008 and VAX I've programmed and designed with all. The key thing is I have working examples of all but the 8008. Drat, I forgot the NEC unique 4 bitters the uCOM4 and ucom75 series designed them into and programmed them as well. <What's a 3001, BTW? 3001 is an intel bit slice (2 bits per). Allison

28 years

4004 (was Re[2]: Replies to various threads)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I have an Intel Component Data Catalogue from about 1978 that still lists <as being available then. A 4 bit microprocessor wouldn't have been very <useful in a computer so might we find them as controllers in washing <machines, microwaves and the like? They were used for calculator like and control systems. The word width does not determine it's usefulness as a computer though it greately affects speed. Allison

28 years

C64 3 1/2" drive

by cgregory＠lrbcg.com

The highly sought after Commodore 1581 (3 1/2") drive is worth anywhere from $50. - $80. depending upon condition (power supply included). Post a message as to it's availability in comp.sys.cbm, and you'll have all kinds of offers. Cliff Gregory cgregory(a)lrbcg.com -----Original Message----- From: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> To: Cgregory <Cgregory> Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 10:15 PM Subject: C64 3 1/2" drive > >Just turned up a Commodore 3 1/2" drive -- didn't know they existed! Anyone >interested? > >Also, some strange thing with 4 hand held units with 4 buttons each, which >plugs into the joystick port. No software. > >manney(a)lrbcg.com > >

28 years

4004 (was Re[2]: Replies to various threads)

by jolminkh＠nsw.bigpond.net.au

> >Showoff :-) No 8008? I always wanted a 4004 (anyone listening out there, I have an Intel Component Data Catalogue from about 1978 that still lists it as being available then. A 4 bit microprocessor wouldn't have been very useful in a computer so might we find them as controllers in washing machines, microwaves and the like?

28 years

About the Wang '669 patent

by H.Davies＠latrobe.edu.au

At 09:50 PM 24-04-98 -0500, Doug Yowza wrote: >It sounds like the Wang patent basically covers rendering formatted >information on a terminal that was acquired via a remote connection. So, >what was the closest thing to a Web browser before 1993? GRiD fan that I >am, I vote for the 1982 GRiD/OS and remote GRiDCentral. GRiD/OS had a >form and menu based OS interface and actions were based on the file type >and extension. GRiDCentral (and the LAN-based GRiDServer) basically >distributed this menu-based filesystem over a remote connection. How about the CAI system that CDC had (I can't remember the name off hand at the moment - I think my brain is broken - I couldn't even remember the brand name of some wine I wanted to buy yesterday... Will chewing on a floppy disk or two improve things :-). From my limited exposure it's likely that the CDC thingy :-) had a browser style interface. Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)latrobe.edu.au Information Technology Services | Phone: +61 3 9479 1550 Fax: +61 3 9479 1999 La Trobe University | "My Alfa keeps me poor in a monetary Melbourne Australia 3083 | sense, but rich in so many other ways"

28 years

About the Wang '669 patent

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 24, 21:50, Doug Yowza wrote: > Subject: About the Wang '669 patent > On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Zane H. Healy wrote: > > > If you haven't seen the news yet, I found out thanks to http://slashdot.org > > , Microsoft is pulling one of their dirtiest stunts ever in their attempt > > to destroy Netscape. If anyone doesn't think Microsoft is evil this should > > convince them, unless they are niave enough to think Microsoft isn't behind > > this! > > What makes you think the Evil Empire is behind this? Did Microsoft buy > Wang recently? If not, they'll get hit with the same suit. They "formed a partnership" which, amongst other things, involved the exchange of some $90,000,000. > It sounds like the Wang patent basically covers rendering formatted > information on a terminal that was acquired via a remote connection. So, > what was the closest thing to a Web browser before 1993? GRiD fan that I > am, I vote for the 1982 GRiD/OS and remote GRiDCentral. GRiD/OS had a > form and menu based OS interface and actions were based on the file type > and extension. GRiDCentral (and the LAN-based GRiDServer) basically > distributed this menu-based filesystem over a remote connection. The Wang patent relates to videotex terminals, exactly the stuff that British Telecom developed in the 1970s and pushed hard (as PRESTEL) in the early 80s. Prestel was organised a little like an ISP, with various "IP"s (information providers) renting space in which they creating "frames" of text and (chunky) graphics which were accessible by modem. IPs could sublet space, too, so individuals could rent just a single frame if they wanted. In 1982 PRESTEL launched a service called Micronet800, which used thousands of pages on PRESTEL servers to store microcomputer related news, software, etc, and started selling software to enable home micros to dial up and display/load/save these pages. Actually, stuff for micros had been around on PRESTEL before that, but spring 1982 was when it took off. I got my software and modem that summer. Most of the modems were simple devices built in to an acoustic coupler, fondly known as agnostic complicators. PRESTEL itself didn't make use of file extensions, but obviously some of the micro systesm that accessed it did. CP/M has always based certain actions on file types and extensions, for example. It did use menus of links, and the links between frames, could be quite arbitrary (and tangled!) just like the web. There was even a command to go back one or more frames, and there were "response" frames and a mail system and ... -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

Year 2000 Bounty

by maxeskin＠hotmail.com

As far as commonality of old machines goes, most airports have old machines. Public libraries do as well. The boston public library just replaced some Vaxen with Alpha machines. I couldn't get them to tell me what they did with the old stuff. In general, I would say that the amount of old machines is greater than a given reasonable estimate (ie there's always one more). Also, I'm wondering how many simple cash registers will have to be taken out of service. > >Hmmm... And Sam, you have an interesting thought. But I wonder actually how >many old systems you refer to are actually are still in use? > >Anybody who's got a better handle on the present population of minis and >mainframes still in service want to give an opinion on this? > >One drawback for me (maybe others here too): my wife will kill me if I drag >home a second or third big-iron machine ;-) We just moved into a new house >and I can say for sure that we are only _half-moved_ at the moment. The >other stuff yet to move is my collections, library, workshop, tools, >equipment, parts, stuff, etc, etc, etc.. I am tired and sore already. >Thank heaven the old and new house are only about a mile apart! > >At 14:05 23-04-98 -0700, Kip wrote: >>At 09:27 4/23/98 -0700, Sam wrote: >>>I'm sure this is not even an original thought, but the Year 2000 presents >>>a special opportunity for collectors like us. >> >>See ANALYTICAL ENGINE Volume 1, Number 2, October 1993 ;-) If we think >>we've got a space crisis NOW.... >>__________________________________________ >>Kip Crosby engine(a)chac.org >> http://www.chac.org/index.html >>Computer History Association of California >> >Christian Fandt, Electronic/Electrical Historian >Jamestown, NY USA >Member of Antique Wireless Association > URL: http://www.ggw.org/freenet/a/awa/ > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

28 years

Replies to various threads

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< :> I have: 1802, SC/MP, 6800, 6809, NEC D78PG11, 8748/9, 8751, < :>8080/8085, z80, z180, z280, z8002, z8001, 808x, 8018x, 80286, < :>80386, 80486 and the micro version of minis 6100(pdp-8), < :>6120(PDP-8+EMA) TI9900, PDP11(T-11, F11, J-11). < < :Showoff :-) No 8008? I always wanted a 4004 (anyone listening out < :there, that's a hint) and an SC/MP. Anybody remember Fairchild F8's The 8008 doesn't count as it's not operational. I only have the cpu card out of my first design. ;-) Same for the 2901/2911 based hardware and the 29116 board. I also have an ADVICE, thats a VAX (78032 chip) on a board for in circuit emulation. I keep forgetting it. Strange board! F8/3870 yes, never desgned with it but I had to know it to compete. Allison

28 years

Fwd: Re: Commodore 900

by healyzh＠ix.netcom.com

Pardon my forwarding this from the "Team Amiga" mailing list, but I figure some people here might find this very interesting. Zane >Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:54:25 -0400 (EDT) >To: <teamamiga(a)thule.no> >From: Dave Haynie <dhaynie(a)jersey.net> >Subject: Re: Commodore 900 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Sender: owner-teamamiga(a)thule.no >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: teamamiga(a)thule.no > >On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:55:49 +0500, amorel <amorel(a)xs4all.nl> jammed all >night, and by sunrise was overheard remarking: > >>> When Commodore Holland went bust, there stuff got sold to different >> traders. At a fair in Nov. 1995, in Holland(HCC beurs) I bought an >> interesting machine, called the Commodore 900. > >Cool! I would love to have one of those. > >The C900 was the Commodore "next generation" machine, before we bought >Amiga. It had unfortunately been through a few different design teams >before it really worked. I never worked on it -- I was on the C128 at >the time. George Robbins and Bob Welland really got it going; the same >guys who created the A500 architecture. The C900 was about ready to ship >when we bought the Amiga. Commodore was hurtin' then -- we had been >through four rounds of layoffs, the only time it got worse was in later >'93/early '94 when they bought the farm. C= put everything behind the >Amiga -- emotionally, in retrospect, the right thing to do. But I can't >help but wonder if the C900 might not have gone gangbusters, especially >in Europe. At the time, the only megapixel UNIX workstations came from >Sun and Apollo... > >> The machine is a Unix workstation. > >It actually ran Coherent, a UNIX clone from Mark-Williams. > >> Inside there is a shitload of electronics. At least there's no room for >> a lot more, like extension cards. > >Actually, it did take expansion cards, but kind of a novel design -- >they stacked, one on top of the other. If you've ever seen PC/104 cards, >you'll get the idea. The 8563 chip, the 80 column chip in the C128, was >originally designed as a "dumb terminal" display chip for the C900. >Apparently, the idea was to have this chip, and a 6502 or some-such, and >an RS-232 chip (like the 6551), togther in a character-based monitor, >for cheap multiuser systems built up around the C900. There was also a >blitter based graphics card (the built-in monochrome display has no >blitter), with a Welland-done blitter (a bit more sophisticated in some >places than the Amiga, for example, like AAA, it would work in real >pixel coordinates, rather than offset/modulo). > >> The motherboard has Zilog 16 bit CPU (16 bit version of the Z80?) > >The Z8000. It wasn't a 16-bit version of the Z-80, but something new. It >wasn't quite as cool as the 68000, since the model was definitely >16-bit. But much better than the 8086/8088 of the time. > >> and one which might be scsi and more. > >The DMA chip on the A2090/A2090A controllers for the Amiga, was >originally designed for this system. > >> The great thing is, it even works! :-) > >Cool! > >> Anyway, has anyone any info about this? > >You know pretty much what I know. I don't know if there's anything else, >I can ask around, see if George has any details. Gimme a direct mail if >you'd like to continue offline. > >> Until now I have not had any sign of anyone on internet who knows >> about this. > >Rarer than the A3000+, I suspect. A definite collector's item. > >Dave Haynie | V.P. Technology, PIOS Computer | http://www.pios.de >Be Dev #2024 | DMX2000 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One > Buy my house! Take the tour at http://www.jersey.net/~dhaynie > | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator | | healyzh(a)ix.netcom.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast | | healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector | +----------------------------------+----------------------------+ | For Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, | | see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ | | For the collecting of Classic Computers with info on them. | | see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/museum.html |

28 years

Year 2000 Bounty

by maxeskin＠hotmail.com

What really came to my mind was an ancient McDonalds thing I saw once. They were 50's style rounded video monitors, awful text. They looked like something from "Brazil". I was wondering how those would tolerate it. Also, those UPS hand-held things > >> In general, I would say that the amount of old machines is greater >> than a given reasonable estimate (ie there's always one more). >> Also, I'm wondering how many simple cash registers will have to be >> taken out of service. > >The _simple_ cash registers will keep plugging along doing what they >do best. As far as I can tell, they're not particularly sensitive >to what century they're in. The complex fancy new-fangled registers >are a whole nother story -- anybody know what types of systems are >most used at the other end of the cables attached to the laser >bar-code readers? Not an industry I've dealt with much except as a >consumer. (I know damned well there are a few NCR registers still >in service from the 19th century -- they should make the transition >to the 21st without a hickup.) >-- >Ward Griffiths >They say that politics makes strange bedfellows. >Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else. > Michael Flynn, _Rogue Star_ > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

28 years

C64 3 1/2" drive

by manney＠lrbcg.com

Just turned up a Commodore 3 1/2" drive -- didn't know they existed! Anyone interested? Also, some strange thing with 4 hand held units with 4 buttons each, which plugs into the joystick port. No software. manney(a)lrbcg.com

28 years

[getting old punched cards read]

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 24, 19:55, Bob Withers wrote: The original poster stated that he was passing a NULL POINTER to strcpy. You replied that it should be OK to copy from a NUL STRING. I understand the difference and was trying to casually point out that you were not addressing the question asked. Sorry if I ruffled some feathers. You didn't. I just normally write in that tone of voice (if you see what I mean :-)) -- and I hadn't quite thought it through. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

Osborne 1 for $1000?

by kaikal＠MICROSOFT.com

Somebody's been reading that LA Times article again... Kai -----Original Message----- From: Sam Ismail [mailto:dastar@wco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 12:54 PM To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers Subject: Osborne 1 for $1000? Anyone want to buy an Osborne 1 for $1000? Didn't think so. However, if you're interested in trying to talk this guy down to reality, I have the contact info. Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Don't blame me...I voted for Satan. Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0 See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details! [Last web page update: 04/23/98]

28 years

[getting old punched cards read]

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 24, 20:32, Captain Napalm wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Pete Turnbull once stated: > > Yes, but that's not what I wrote. A null string is an empty string (no > > characters). A NUL string would be a string with a single ASCII NUL > > character in it > And what I was talking about was NULL pointers, which strcpy() doesn't > like. > > -spc (and it's a NULL POINTER that strtok() will return, not a NULL > string.) Oops. Too much gin in the tonic water tonight. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

[getting old punched cards read]

by bwit＠pobox.com

The original poster stated that he was passing a NULL POINTER to strcpy. You replied that it should be OK to copy from a NUL STRING. I understand the difference and was trying to casually point out that you were not addressing the question asked. Sorry if I ruffled some feathers. Bob ---------- From: Pete Turnbull[SMTP:pete@dunnington.u-net.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 7:39 PM To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers Subject: Re: [getting old punched cards read] On Apr 24, 17:10, Bob Withers wrote: > There's a big difference between a NUL string and a NULL pointer. Yes, but that's not what I wrote. A null string is an empty string (no characters). A NUL string would be a string with a single ASCII NUL character in it -- and rather hard to manipulate in C, since NULs mark the ends. Nevertheless, they do exist, though that wasn't what I was talking about. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

Osborne 1 for $1000?

by dastar＠wco.com

Anyone want to buy an Osborne 1 for $1000? Didn't think so. However, if you're interested in trying to talk this guy down to reality, I have the contact info. Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't blame me...I voted for Satan. Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0 See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details! [Last web page update: 04/23/98]

28 years

Replies to various threads

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 23, 14:33, Allison J Parent wrote: > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Replies to various threads > > <> The PDP-11 architecture has only 7 GP registers (since you can't really > <> the PC for just anything) but that's good for the times, and they reall > <> are interchangable, so I'd be willing to argue that it wins on that. > < > <I'm glad somebody agrees with me on that! IMHO the concept of a GP > <register is a RISC sort of thing. And, Allison, if you think RISC > <should be register-rich, I claim the PDP11 was for its date, and > <certainly was compared to micros of the 1970s. > > Compared to maybe 6800 or 6502, the 8080 had 4 16bit registers (bc, de, > hl, sp). The z80 added a second set and IX/IY. But that was only one > aspect. But you can't easily use both sets of registers at the same time (yes, I know we sometimes do, but it's a fiddle) and the Z80 is very much a single-accumulator type of beast. And as for IX and IY ;-) The original design of the 6502, incidentally, was that all of zero-page be treated as registers. They just happen to be external to the chip, which wasn't completely unknown elsewhere in those days. So in that sense it is possibly the most register-rich design of the era -- but the registers are hardly general-purpose, and the 6502 is also a single-accumulator design. > On the instructions RISC systems of the time and even later didn't have > the addressing modes and often had a distinct register load and store > instruction. The best example of that difference was an ADD (R1),@(r2)+. > Now compare that to the DG Nova and it is of a stark difference. If you count all the ways you can index with registers, MIPS processors have quite a few addressing modes. Not all are used very often, though. > Of all the micros in my collection, none are RISC save for the PDP-8 and > 6502 which in my mind come close. The 6502 has a certain elegance of instruction set. Quite a different philosophy to the Z80, in many ways, but I like them both. We used to say that you had to learn how to use the 6502, and when you did, the code was neat, but on a Z80, you just had to decide what you wanted an instruction to do, and then pick the one that did that. Exaggeration, of course. > I have: 1802, SC/MP, 6800, 6809, NEC D78PG11, 8748/9, 8751, 8080/8085, > z80, z180, z280, z8002, z8001, 808x, 8018x, 80286, 80386, 80486 and the > micro version of minis 6100(pdp-8), 6120(PDP-8+EMA) TI9900, PDP11(T-11, > F11, J-11). Showoff :-) No 8008? I always wanted a 4004 (anyone listening out there, that's a hint) and an SC/MP. Anybody remember Fairchild F8's? > Now something with a MIPS chip, ARM, sparc or some such would be a great > addition of a real RISC processor. Well, I've got all of those, and my favourite is the ARM. I've had to write MIPS assembler, and it's not great fun. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

ansi c (almost on topic) was: [getting old punched cards read]

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 24, 12:38, Paul E Coad wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Captain Napalm wrote: > > It was thus said that the Great Pete Turnbull once stated: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 1:35, Captain Napalm wrote: > > > > strcpy() (at least on my compiler) will crash if any of the > > > > parameters are NULL pointers, > > > > > > That's a compiler (or library, actually) bug. You should be able to > > > copy a null string. > > > > Well, I've tried it across four platforms and five compilers > > (Linux/GCC, Solaris/native and GCC, AIX/native and HPUX/native) and > > three of the five core dumped. > > > The ANSI standard is not completely silent on the matter, but does not > define the behavior. > > "Each of the following statements applies unless explicitly stated > otherwise in the detailed descriptions that follow. If an argument > to a function has an invalid value (such as a value outside of the > domain of the function, or a pointer outside the address space of > the program or a null pointer), the behavior is undefined." Well, whether I think that's sensible or not ('cos I think you ought to be able to copy a null string), if ANSI says it's undefined, then it's not a bug. I take it back. And thanks for checking, which I was too lazy to do :-) -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

[getting old punched cards read]

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 24, 17:10, Bob Withers wrote: > There's a big difference between a NUL string and a NULL pointer. Yes, but that's not what I wrote. A null string is an empty string (no characters). A NUL string would be a string with a single ASCII NUL character in it -- and rather hard to manipulate in C, since NULs mark the ends. Nevertheless, they do exist, though that wasn't what I was talking about. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

Here's an interesting spam

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 24, 11:53, Don Maslin wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Pete Turnbull wrote: > > On Apr 24, 15:38, Hotze wrote: > > > Reply to the spammers, > > > > Not often a good idea, since the consensus seems to be that responses > > merely confirm that the address they used is (still) valid. > > True! However, in some cases e-mail with a copy of the spam or UCE to > the postmaster of the ISP has been productive. In the case of known spam > centers though, it is likely a BIG mistake. Yes, I should perhaps have mentioned mailing to postmaster@... or abuse@... as several responsible ISPs do follow these things up. I've had two very positive responses from sysadmins, one of whom tracked a spammer who was spoofing via his system, and one from a large ISP. In both cases, the culprit lost their account. It's worth looking at all the "Received: from ..." headers in such cases. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

28 years

Jump to page:

2026

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