INFO-VAX Sat, 05 Jan 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 10 Contents: Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Re: Nasty bug in Xerces 3 for OpenVMS OT: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight Re: OT: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight RE: Samba Gains Legal Access to Microsoft Network File Protocols RE: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight Re: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:57:58 -0800 From: Ken Fairfield Subject: Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Message-ID: <5u8o3nF1dm0s6U1@mid.individual.net> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: [...] > Why do you care WHAT the from address is?? > > What problem are you really trying to solve? I'm trying to reproduce the functionality of the current, but broken, CCL scripts up to and including the (fake) From: address, in DCL while correcting the "broken" part (uuencode corruption). I'm concerned that our user community, or a subset of it, may have created OutHouse filters on the From: address, which is currently a nicely formatted, fixed, non-repliable address. I don't think there will be a problem with (bogus) replies if I can't force the fake From: address (since we've not enabled the SMTP server in Multinet to receive email), but I'd like to avoid user-visible changes if possible. > If all else fails, you should be able to create a VMS account that would > be used only to generate and mail the report. The from address will be > the name of that account. Actually, no, given the architecture of the application (Cerner Millennium), it would be very difficult send mail from a specified account, at least not without making this a whole lot more complicated, e.g., doing a submit/user makes getting proper error reporting back to the calling application "challenging" at best. Thanks, Ken -- Ken & Ann Fairfield What: Ken dot And dot Ann Where: Gmail dot Com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:15:39 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Message-ID: <477f3d2d$0$16229$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Many moons ago, there was a prodedure lying around DECUS that showed how to use DCL to do task to task DECnet mail. This procedure had the wonderful ability to spoof the "From" address. Can't remember what its name was though. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:20:16 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Message-ID: <477f3e4f$0$10018$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Come to think of it, with DECnet, you could set it up. Create a "From" account on VMS. Give the accounts that rn the software a proxy to the "From" account. Then, the software creates a file, sets its protection so that "From" can read/delete it. Then open the task to the From account, send in the "To" , the "Subject" and the "file name". Then that tasks reads those 3 items and proceeds to email the file to "TO" and with teh specificed subject. When done, the file is deleted. This way, that task will be sending proper VMS mail under the "From" account. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:36:55 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Pi=E9ronne?= Subject: Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Message-ID: <477f41a8$0$4438$426a74cc@news.free.fr> Craig A. Berry wrote: > In article > <5138d915-cc4b-4f19-b10d-d016355c0eeb@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com wrote: > >> So I'm looking for a no-cost work-around. I can't purchase >> PMDF, for example. I looked for the "NBL" utility, but the >> link in the FAQ gets me to a site that I can't translate, and >> doesn't look to be VMS related at all. >> >> Are there any other suggestions? "Hidden" Multinet logical >> names. Some other freely available interface to Callable_Mail? > > I use Perl with the MIME::Lite module: > > http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/MIME-Lite-3.021/lib/MIME/Lite.pm > > You can create a complicated multi-part message with the parts in > various and sundry encodings in about a dozen lines of code. And yes, > you can say it's from whoever you want it to be from. > Python also include an email module to do this sort of things, I use it extensively in some of my tools. http://docs.python.org/lib/module-email.html http://docs.python.org/lib/netdata.html JFP ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:16:47 +0100 From: "Martin Vorlaender" Subject: Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Message-ID: Ken Fairfield wrote: > Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote: >> Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com wrote: >> I use NBL a lot to send mails from a VMS system (Alpha 7.3) >> It's a very simple tool that just opens a link to port 25 >> on the/any smtp server and "sends" the mail. In my case it >> opens port 25 on localhost, so it's still my own smtp server >> who send the mail in the end. > > Ah ha, so this may not work in my case since we don't enable > the SMTP server in Multinet and I'm not inclined to change > that. Read Jan's paragraph again - you can use any smtp server (surely you do have some smtp server somewhere in your net?!). Using localhost usally is just the easiest solution. cu, Martin -- One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules! One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:29:14 -0800 From: "jo jimbo" Subject: Re: How to set "From:" address in VMS MAIL Message-ID: > Are there any other suggestions? "Hidden" Multinet logical > names. Some other freely available interface to Callable_Mail? > You can write your own interface to callable mail. The routines are still in VMS and documented.. I haven't personally done this for at least 20 years, but if your needs are not too much, following the examples will get you going. As I recall setting the from address requires some privilege, see mail$_message_from field. Docs at: http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/83final/4493/4493pro_contents_002.html#toc_chapter_16 Good luck, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:48:33 -0800 (PST) From: yyyc186 Subject: Re: Nasty bug in Xerces 3 for OpenVMS Message-ID: <702076bc-95e7-49bd-ba97-a6b094712f0b@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Jan 4, 10:01 pm, "Craig A. Berry" wrote: > In article > <92093c6d-7d41-4dbe-b482-a30b9a418...@d37g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > yyyc186 wrote: > > The Xerces 3 library had a nasty bug introduced into it. > > > $ dp :== $XERCES-C$ROOT:[000000.bin]DOMPrint.exe > > $ dp x1.xml > > Fatal Error at file "", line 0, column 0 > > Message: An exception occurred! Type:RuntimeException, Message:The > > primary document entity could not be opened. Id=DEV_DSK:[HUGHES]/ > > x1.xml > > %NONAME-F-NOMSG, Message number 00000004 > > > Notice the slash which is in between the OpenVMS DEVICE:[PATH] and > > FILE.NAME. > > > I'm in the process of trying to download a prior version. I know this > > used to work back when VMS was part of the standard Xerces distro. > > Anybody else run into this? > > I've never fiddled with Xerces since either expat or libxml2 has always > done what I needed, but this is a very common type of porting problem. > Check the settings of your DECC$ features and check any configuration > files you have control over to see if there are ways of specifying what > path or path formats it uses. > > It very much looks as though it's taken your current working directory, > most likely whatever is returned by the CRTL cwd(), and pasted the > filename onto it with an intervening slash. My first swing would be to > enable DECC$FILENAME_UNIX_REPORT and see what happens. After I wrote > that I went and checked here: > > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/xml/xmlc_relnotes_v30.... > #creating_appln > > and it says the same thing: enable DECC$FILENAME_UNIX_REPORT. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com Thank you kindly. I missed that line. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:44:55 -0000 From: "John Wallace" Subject: OT: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight Message-ID: <13nunthlrf2ie49@corp.supernews.com> "ChrisQuayle" wrote in message news:Dzzej.25815$KC3.11290@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net... > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > > > > The whole company has no problem noticing Microsoft Windows. And the > > money from that just goes into someone else's coffers. Great way to > > run a business. > > > > bill > > > > The amazing thing to me, even years after the event, was the way that HP > took an industry leading architecture and tossed it away as though it > were worthless. Even now, such a decision doesn't look like the product > of sound minds - irrational from any view. How can anyone take such a > company seriously after such a fiasco and all the politics and other > crap that's gone down since ?. > > At least Sun is still flying the flag of innovation - have you looked at > Solaris 10 yet ? - Everything Tru64 would have grown into and a company > that looks like it understands the meaning of the phrases 'business > ethics' and 'pursuit of excellence'. > > Remember, it took Intel 10 years to catch up with Alpha - that's how far > ahead it was. Rest in Peace perhaps, but not forgotten :-)... > > Chris > > > I don't know much about Sun, and whether their current situation is the result of good judgement or good luck. Where's Andrew these days (oh, I forgot, he had so much faith in Sun's future that he went to the Dark Side, iirc. Or perhaps Sun had so much faith in his future :)). Wrt "such a decision doesn't look like the product of sound minds - irrational from any view": that one's easier, once you remember that the current mess originates from the combined actions of a couple of industry monopolists and a DEC 'management' team who thought they were critically dependent on the goodwill of the monopolists. They may well have been right, but perhaps not in the sense they intended or with the result they had hoped for, though as usual it's not the "leaders" who end up paying the price. Think back to mid 1990s. Across the industry, Intel "business partners" who intended to stay serious in the x86 market needed close and early access to info from Intel about what was coming down the pipeline, in order to be ready to launch system-level product on the market on the day when the chips were launched. Work too closely with a competitor to Intel (be it AMD, Alpha, or whatever) and Intel had ways to make sure that you lost that top-tier early access. Not only that, there was the small matter of a huge patent lawsuit to settle, between Intel and DEC. The terms of settlement were, afaik, never fully disclosed; one missing item was the full detail of the ten year legal agreement between Intel and DEC, although various bullet points have been reported. Anyway, the ten years is up around now (look up the news coverage from the patent settlement). Just imagine if part of the deal was "we, Intel, will supply you with our Industry Standard 64 chips and guarantee to continue to develop and supply them for the duration of this agreement". Something not a million miles from that was reported and might well have looked like a very sensible deal at the time, both to DEC management (where some ill-informed people apparently thought that Intel never made mistakes) and to the US gvt regulators who had to approve the deal (who were presumably convinced, like DEC management, that only companies like Intel could ever afford succesful serious chip-level development on this scale). You could even imagine that a clause in the agreement might also say "we will develop and supply these chips to you, DEC, on condition that you, DEC and your licensees, cease and desist with further development of the Alpha architecture beyond what is planned and funded today" (or similar), and arguably it could still have looked like a good deal to the Palmers of this world (afraid to compete with Intel lawyers on patents, afraid to compete with Oracle on databases *and* on thin client, afraid to upset Microsoft...). Obviously some reported bits of that deal have already been abandoned, such as the one re "Tru64 for IA64", but the changes of ownership etc probably let the lawyers get away with that fairly easily. Now imagine being the one without Alpha AXP (as UK Alpha Marketing used to say), and imagine what happens in 2008 if Intel are no longer legally obliged to continue developing and supplying IA64 after the agreement expires, leaving the future of IA64 entirely to the usual market economy rules re amortisation of development costs, the same rules which (allegedly) killed Alpha... Well obviously you don't have to *imagine* being without Alpha, and you probably don't want to imagine being without VMS... Happy new year, John Tru64 for IA64: http://www.news.com/2100-1001-204478.html Patent settlement: http://www.news.com/2100-1023-204668.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:18:12 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OT: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight Message-ID: <477fca02$0$15741$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> John Wallace wrote: > Think back to mid 1990s. Across the industry, Intel "business partners" who > intended to stay serious in the x86 market needed close and early access to > info from Intel about what was coming down the pipeline, DEC essentially gave up on competition against Intel/Microsft and joined their ranks as a simple clone maker. > se in the agreement might also say "we > will develop and supply these chips to you, DEC, on condition that you, DEC > and your licensees, cease and desist with further development of the Alpha > architecture beyond what is planned and funded today" And also very important: On the day of the Compaq-DEC announcement, Palmer was interviewed on CNN with Pfeiffer. Palmer bragged about having worked with Pfeiffer for 3 years prior to that day to prune Digital to get rid of the parts that Compaq wasn't interested in. This means that the deal with Intel would have been done "with advise from Pfeiffer". The big goal was to get Intel to buy DEC's money losing FAB. Remember that DEC started from a position of power in this. (But we all know Plamer was perfectly capable of turning this into a position where DEC owes Intel :-). So I initially didn't agree with your speculation. But thinking about it, it does make sense. However, I would word it as: DEC can continue to develop Alpha until first boot of Windows on IA64, at which point, Alpha can be killed off. (remember that June 25 2001 happened just a couple weeks after first boot of Windows on IA64 was announced. Also remember that it was under Palmer that a port of Tru64 to IA64 was announced (but port of VMS to IA64 was denied). Since VMS was on its way out, there was no point to announce any ports. Consider also that on June 25 2001, Curly was already having some serious pillow talk with Carly. So Compaq/HP may have gotten the deal with Intel changed: the instead of Intel funding the port of Tru64 to IA64, it would fund the port of VMS to IA64. (Since Tru64 was going to be killed off in favour of HP-UX. And perhaps this is one reason it took much longer for HP to be able to mention VMS in its merger discussions. Perhpas it was Intel that insisted that at least one DEC OS be ported to IA64. > no longer legally > obliged to continue developing and supplying IA64 after the agreement > expires, leaving the future of IA64 entirely to the usual market economy The deal between HP and Intel wrt IA64 is far stronger than the deal between DEC/Compaq and Intel. Remember that HP was a "venture partner" with IA64. So the lapsing of the deal between DEC and Intel is peanuts compared to what HP has with Intel. At the point in time, the only thing left from the original DEC/Intel deal would be a requirement to have at least one DEC OS developped on IA64. And that means that HP might now be free to end development of VMS on IA64. So this either means the end of VMS, or HP porting VMS to the 8086. And when you look at Cerner, refusing to port to that IA64 contraption can mean two things: Either VMS is dead, or HP is about to announce a port of VMS to the 8086 so it is pointless for Cerner to commit to porting VMS to IA64. However, when you consider other factors, it is more likely that VMS is dead. Remember that many HP and now former HP employees have repeatedly stated that there were no plan to port VMS beyond IA64. So it is the end of the line. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:03:06 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Samba Gains Legal Access to Microsoft Network File Protocols Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Maher [mailto:maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com] > Sent: January 4, 2008 11:06 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Samba Gains Legal Access to Microsoft Network File > Protocols > > Hi, > > > Key skills VMS OpenVMS VMS C VMS COBOL > > What no Java? No SOAP? No Apache/Tomcat? > Hey, different strokes for different folks. Cobol was around long before I started in the industry and will certainly continue to be a major player long after I have retired. Same goes for many of the other 3GL's. Bottom line is that many Cust's have way to much invested in business logic written in these traditional languages to do any major conversions. Reference the following article: (a bit dated, but still applicable today) http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1237807,00.asp Is COBOL the 18-Wheeler of the Web? Extracts: "If you're looking for a hot combination of highly employable skills, consider writing code to provide Web services--in COBOL." "It takes a while to refill the pipeline of critical skills, after we notice that it's running dry. If we're going to need people in, say, 2008 who have current knowledge of the Internet and the Web, practiced skills in writing COBOL code that can use those network resources, and five to 10 years of experience in leading a development team, now is not too soon to start developing those assets." Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:47:48 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk] > Sent: January 5, 2008 5:45 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: OT: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight > > > "ChrisQuayle" wrote in message > news:Dzzej.25815$KC3.11290@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net... > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > > > > > > > The whole company has no problem noticing Microsoft Windows. And > the > > > money from that just goes into someone else's coffers. Great way > to > > > run a business. > > > > > > bill > > > > > > > The amazing thing to me, even years after the event, was the way that > HP > > took an industry leading architecture and tossed it away as though it > > were worthless. Even now, such a decision doesn't look like the > product > > of sound minds - irrational from any view. How can anyone take such a > > company seriously after such a fiasco and all the politics and other > > crap that's gone down since ?. > > > > At least Sun is still flying the flag of innovation - have you looked > at > > Solaris 10 yet ? - Everything Tru64 would have grown into and a > company > > that looks like it understands the meaning of the phrases 'business > > ethics' and 'pursuit of excellence'. > > > > Remember, it took Intel 10 years to catch up with Alpha - that's how > far > > ahead it was. Rest in Peace perhaps, but not forgotten :-)... > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > I don't know much about Sun, and whether their current situation is the > result of good judgement or good luck. Where's Andrew these days (oh, I > forgot, he had so much faith in Sun's future that he went to the Dark > Side, > iirc. Or perhaps Sun had so much faith in his future :)). > > Wrt "such a decision doesn't look like the product of sound minds - > irrational from any view": that one's easier, once you remember that > the > current mess originates from the combined actions of a couple of > industry > monopolists and a DEC 'management' team who thought they were > critically > dependent on the goodwill of the monopolists. They may well have been > right, > but perhaps not in the sense they intended or with the result they had > hoped > for, though as usual it's not the "leaders" who end up paying the > price. > > Think back to mid 1990s. Across the industry, Intel "business partners" > who > intended to stay serious in the x86 market needed close and early > access to > info from Intel about what was coming down the pipeline, in order to be > ready to launch system-level product on the market on the day when the > chips > were launched. Work too closely with a competitor to Intel (be it AMD, > Alpha, or whatever) and Intel had ways to make sure that you lost that > top-tier early access. > > Not only that, there was the small matter of a huge patent lawsuit to > settle, between Intel and DEC. The terms of settlement were, afaik, > never > fully disclosed; one missing item was the full detail of the ten year > legal > agreement between Intel and DEC, although various bullet points have > been > reported. Anyway, the ten years is up around now (look up the news > coverage > from the patent settlement). Just imagine if part of the deal was "we, > Intel, will supply you with our Industry Standard 64 chips and > guarantee to > continue to develop and supply them for the duration of this > agreement". > Something not a million miles from that was reported and might well > have > looked like a very sensible deal at the time, both to DEC management > (where > some ill-informed people apparently thought that Intel never made > mistakes) > and to the US gvt regulators who had to approve the deal (who were > presumably convinced, like DEC management, that only companies like > Intel > could ever afford succesful serious chip-level development on this > scale). > > You could even imagine that a clause in the agreement might also say > "we > will develop and supply these chips to you, DEC, on condition that you, > DEC > and your licensees, cease and desist with further development of the > Alpha > architecture beyond what is planned and funded today" (or similar), and > arguably it could still have looked like a good deal to the Palmers of > this > world (afraid to compete with Intel lawyers on patents, afraid to > compete > with Oracle on databases *and* on thin client, afraid to upset > Microsoft...). > > Obviously some reported bits of that deal have already been abandoned, > such > as the one re "Tru64 for IA64", but the changes of ownership etc > probably > let the lawyers get away with that fairly easily. > > Now imagine being the one without Alpha AXP (as UK Alpha Marketing used > to > say), and imagine what happens in 2008 if Intel are no longer legally > obliged to continue developing and supplying IA64 after the agreement > expires, leaving the future of IA64 entirely to the usual market > economy > rules re amortisation of development costs, the same rules which > (allegedly) > killed Alpha... Well obviously you don't have to *imagine* being > without > Alpha, and you probably don't want to imagine being without VMS... > > Happy new year, > John > > Tru64 for IA64: http://www.news.com/2100-1001-204478.html > Patent settlement: http://www.news.com/2100-1023-204668.html > Re: IA64 futures... Well, don't know if this is true or not (Register is not exactly the WSJ), but I was surprised no one else posted this recent article: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/27/tukwila-shape Intel Tukwila in good shape By Charlie Demerjian: Thursday, 27 December 2007, 10:03 AM WORD IS TRICKLING out of Intel that its latest monster die chip, Tukwila the third (or is it second? (or is it fourth?)) is doing quite well. It is up, running, and boots several OSes. Since this will be both Intel's first released native quad and first released CSI part, that is no small feat. =B5 Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:22:17 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight Message-ID: <01cb1690$0$11729$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Main, Kerry wrote: > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/27/tukwila-shape > Intel Tukwila in good shape > > By Charlie Demerjian: Thursday, 27 December 2007, 10:03 AM > > WORD IS TRICKLING out of Intel that its latest monster die chip, > Tukwila the third (or is it second? (or is it fourth?)) is doing > quite well. Saw that one. But the same article could have been printed of EV7 as well. When you look at how Alpha was killed, the big mistake was in when it was announced. Had they announced it at a time when IA64 was at par with Alpha, the announcement would have had greater credibility and caused far less loss of sales. It is quite certain that Intel will wait for the 8086 to be clearly at par or surpass IA64 before pulling the plug on IA64. And with CSI, this is coming fast. Carly had predicted this would happen in 2007 because back in early 2004, CSI was to happen in 2007. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.010 ************************