INFO-VAX Thu, 19 Jun 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 341 Contents: Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Re: How things change for VMS Re: How things change for VMS Re: How things change for VMS LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages TPU/EVE performance on remote display + mouse button Re: TPU/EVE performance on remote display + mouse button Re: VAX/DEC Document Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:40:19 -0700 (PDT) From: DaveG Subject: Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Message-ID: <4bda7ff2-60c6-4ca7-b1bd-31528a3011a7@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com> On Jun 18, 4:21=A0pm, Malcolm Dunnett wrote: > The ACME LDAP DOI configuration only permits one LDAP server to be > specified. The typical approach in Active Directory configurations is > to make the LDAP connection to the domain name (which will provide a > list of the domain controllers). It appears that the ACME agent will > only try to connect to the first LDAP server on this list - if that > server is down then the LDAP lookups will hang and eventually fail with > an error of: > > =A0 %ACME-E-FAILURE, operation failure; if logging is enabled, see detail= s > in the ACME$SERVER log file > > =A0 This failure takes approximately one minute to occur on each query. > Not trying the other servers on the list is a significant deficit in > terms of system reliability - having a single LDAP server down will > cripple the entire system. > > To work around this I tried rewriting my application to specify a > timeout value (of 5 seconds) and if the call doesn't complete to the > default DOI in that time period I try a second call specifying the VMS > DOI - so that the locally stored password will be used in place of the > LDAP lookup. > > This doesn't work, the VMS DOI call times out also - as if it's trying > to contact the LDAP server even though told to use the VMS DOI. If I > don't specify a timeout then the call to the VMS DOI succeeds immediatly > after the LDAP lookup fails, but this requires the entire process to > take over 1 minute. It's curious that if I let the LDAP lookup fully > time-out on it > > Is there no way to force an authentication to occur immediately using > the VMS DOI in the case where the LDAP DOI is failing due to the LDAP > server not being available? Sounds like something to make VMS support/engineering aware of. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:53:12 -0600 From: Dan O'Reilly Subject: Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080619105246.062998a0@raptor.psccos.com> Actually, the VMS Authentication Module (VAM) from Process Software supports all that behavior... At 10:40 AM 6/19/2008, DaveG wrote: >On Jun 18, 4:21 pm, Malcolm Dunnett wrote: > > The ACME LDAP DOI configuration only permits one LDAP server to be > > specified. The typical approach in Active Directory configurations is > > to make the LDAP connection to the domain name (which will provide a > > list of the domain controllers). It appears that the ACME agent will > > only try to connect to the first LDAP server on this list - if that > > server is down then the LDAP lookups will hang and eventually fail with > > an error of: > > > > %ACME-E-FAILURE, operation failure; if logging is enabled, see details > > in the ACME$SERVER log file > > > > This failure takes approximately one minute to occur on each query. > > Not trying the other servers on the list is a significant deficit in > > terms of system reliability - having a single LDAP server down will > > cripple the entire system. > > > > To work around this I tried rewriting my application to specify a > > timeout value (of 5 seconds) and if the call doesn't complete to the > > default DOI in that time period I try a second call specifying the VMS > > DOI - so that the locally stored password will be used in place of the > > LDAP lookup. > > > > This doesn't work, the VMS DOI call times out also - as if it's trying > > to contact the LDAP server even though told to use the VMS DOI. If I > > don't specify a timeout then the call to the VMS DOI succeeds immediatly > > after the LDAP lookup fails, but this requires the entire process to > > take over 1 minute. It's curious that if I let the LDAP lookup fully > > time-out on it > > > > Is there no way to force an authentication to occur immediately using > > the VMS DOI in the case where the LDAP DOI is failing due to the LDAP > > server not being available? > >Sounds like something to make VMS support/engineering aware of. ------ +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | | Process Software | and those who don't." | | http://www.process.com | | +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:58:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Oswald Subject: Re: How things change for VMS Message-ID: On 19 jun, 07:27, "Bart.Z...@gmail.com" wrote: > This is NOT a list of internet connected nodes, but a list of Bitnet/ > Earn connected nodes. > > Regards, > > Bart Zorn > Hoi Bart, Remeber this one: HDETUD5 Tech Hoogeschool Delft VMS 4 4 :-) Oswald ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:03:28 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: How things change for VMS Message-ID: <273ca197-7ddf-437d-b26a-ba3600851c3a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Jun 19, 1:27 am, "Bart.Z...@gmail.com" wrote: > This is NOT a list of internet connected nodes, but a list of Bitnet/ > Earn connected nodes. > > Regards, > > Bart Zorn > > On Jun 18, 7:56 pm, "John Smith" wrote: > > > I was looking for a citation on-line for a computer crime case which occured > > in the late 1970's (I think) and stumbled upon this sitehttp://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=6&id=12 > > > and a short way into the web page there is a section entitled > > > CONNECTED NODES AS OF 10/05/88 > > TOTAL NODES = 2491 > > which lists all the known connected nodes on the internet as of that date > > and the operating system running on each node. > > > A fast Mk I Eyeball count suggests that about 60% were running VMS then. > > > I wonder how few still run VMS today - 20 years later. I see mine and it was a VAXcluster with several nodes (I think we were up to a total of ten at one point) and only the cluster name is there. So many others may also be VAXclusters. And I'm pretty sure this VAXcluster was retired maybe 5 - 8 years ago. ... Oh well. AEF ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 08 13:29:27 EDT From: cook@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) Subject: Re: How things change for VMS Message-ID: In article <273ca197-7ddf-437d-b26a-ba3600851c3a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > On Jun 19, 1:27 am, "Bart.Z...@gmail.com" wrote: >> This is NOT a list of internet connected nodes, but a list of Bitnet/ >> Earn connected nodes. >> >> Regards, >> >> Bart Zorn >> >> On Jun 18, 7:56 pm, "John Smith" wrote: >> >> > I was looking for a citation on-line for a computer crime case which occured >> > in the late 1970's (I think) and stumbled upon this sitehttp://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=6&id=12 >> >> > and a short way into the web page there is a section entitled >> >> > CONNECTED NODES AS OF 10/05/88 >> > TOTAL NODES = 2491 >> > which lists all the known connected nodes on the internet as of that date >> > and the operating system running on each node. >> >> > A fast Mk I Eyeball count suggests that about 60% were running VMS then. >> >> > I wonder how few still run VMS today - 20 years later. > > I see mine and it was a VAXcluster with several nodes (I think we were > up to a total of ten at one point) and only the cluster name is there. > So many others may also be VAXclusters. > > And I'm pretty sure this VAXcluster was retired maybe 5 - 8 years > ago. ... Oh well. Our cluster (WVNVMS) including one of the original cluster members (WVNVAXA, although not the same CPU) is still up. Our IBM VM and MVS nodes are long gone, but VMS has survived here in spite of the actions of DEC/Compaq/HP. George Cook WVNET ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:36:06 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <485a2a17$0$7219$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> OK, this is a very grey area, I know. Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in the hobbyist package). Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ? Also, if one VESts (or whatever name it has this week) a DEC VAX product to Alpha. Will the VAX licence function on the Alpha for that product ? (it is a product that never existed on alpha so no alpha licences would have ever been generated). Or is the best approach to go to VMS management and request that they issue a generic licence that would be posted on the freeware site ? (like they did for Notes). For some products, notably the PSPINT utility (postscript to sixel), I suspect VMS management would not be able to do this because this product came with lots of parts belonging to Adobe). Reason I bring this up was a recent request for VAX DOCUMENT. This is a tough issue because it is supp0sedly not onwed by VMS anymore, but the company that supposedly owns it has long ago retired it or whatever. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:55:04 +0100 From: "R.A.Omond" Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <485a2d29$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> JF Mezei wrote: > OK, this is a very grey area, I know. > > Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for > which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in > the hobbyist package). > > Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake > licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require > a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ? > [...rest snipped...] Producing a fake licence is very easy. Patching the image to check the licence of another product is also very easy (even using EDT ;-) ). Note I 've never done either of the above ... (in the last couple of days). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:01:31 -0700 (PDT) From: IanMiller Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <8a1be556-8f6b-48b3-ad8a-d1a02792bb4a@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On 19 Jun, 10:36, JF Mezei wrote: > OK, this is a very grey area, I know. > > Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for > which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in > the hobbyist package). > > Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake > licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require > a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ? > > Also, if one VESts (or whatever name it has this week) a DEC VAX product > to Alpha. Will the VAX licence function on the Alpha for that product ? > (it is a product that never existed on alpha so no alpha licences would > have ever been generated). > > Or is the best approach to go to VMS management and request that they > issue a generic licence that would be posted on the freeware site ? > (like they did for Notes). > > For some products, notably the PSPINT utility (postscript to sixel), I > suspect VMS management would not be able to do this because this product > came with lots of parts belonging to Adobe). > > Reason I bring this up was a recent request for VAX DOCUMENT. This is a > tough issue because it is supp0sedly not onwed by VMS anymore, but the > company that supposedly owns it has long ago retired it or whatever. VAX DOCUMENT is not owned by HP. Really, it is not and never has been. So any part of HP including VMS management can not legally issue licences for it as they don't own it. Ask the current owners of DOCUMENT - http://www.ttinet.com/decdocument.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:05:07 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <485a30de$0$7254$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> IanMiller wrote: > VAX DOCUMENT is not owned by HP. Really, it is not and never has been. But Digital used to issue licences for it with producer=DEC prior to Palmer starting his slash and burn and selling DOCUMENT and many other products. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 2008 10:28:23 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <485a34c7$0$7335$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article <485a2a17$0$7219$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: >OK, this is a very grey area, I know. > >Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for >which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in >the hobbyist package). > >Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake >licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require >a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ? Technically, it's a piece of cake. Feigned PAKs can easily be generated. Product's image(s) can be easily hacked/patched. One could even rewrite the SYS$GRANT_LICENSE service to allow it. Legally, it can be a pandora's box. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:43:06 +0100 From: "pos" Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <485a463d$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> >>Ask the current owners of DOCUMENT - \ >> http://www.ttinet.com/decdocument.html I tried - no reply to phone or email. Has anyone else tried recently... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:44:11 -0700 (PDT) From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Message-ID: <7f54ad63-c4cb-439d-bb66-474f9ffc0d72@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> On 16 Jun, 20:00, "Guy Peleg" wrote: > > Some of the features mentioned are clusters over TCP/IP, more members > in a shadow set, significant performance improvements to BACKUP and > more. When was BACKUP performance improvement NOT a function with a new version of VMS? :o) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 2008 07:02:39 -0500 From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) Subject: Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Message-ID: In article <296bd$4856b845$7278@news.teranews.com>, "Guy Peleg" writes: > > "Simon Clubley" wrote in > message news:G356SEIVYWla@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> Does anyone have an idea of when OpenVMS 8.4 Alpha is likely to ship >> and what kind of new functionality is likely to be in it ? > > OpenVMS V8.4 will ship on Alpha and Itanium in H109. Will > include new hardware support (Tukwila processors) and some new > software features in the areas of clustering, availability and performance. > > Some of the features mentioned are clusters over TCP/IP, more members > in a shadow set, significant performance improvements to BACKUP and more. > Thanks. I think that, of the things that you list, the one of most interest to me will be the performance improvements to BACKUP. Does anyone know if there are any changes planned to DCL, for example been able to edit long commands, retention of command history, tab completion of filenames, etc ? I did file a few formal requests in this area a few years ago, but never heard anything more back. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:15:24 +0100 From: "pos" Subject: Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages Message-ID: <485a4dcf$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> >>I realise that VMS engineers no longer look at this >>newgroup, so this >>won't get fixed. Not unless there is a newgroup translation to Hindi, etc...(or of course, for Canadian VAX engineers 'French' (sic) ) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:32:32 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages Message-ID: <9343b665-e087-4283-96e2-395581324fc8@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Jun 17, 3:31 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > JF Mezei wrote: > > Alpha 8.3, TCPIP Services 5.6 > > > send to: > > val...@domain.tld, > > inval...@domain.tld, > > val...@domain.tld, > > inval...@domain.tld > > > VMS makes one TCPIP connection to the domain.tld mail server (as it > > should). It notes that invalid1 and invalid2 are rejected, but proceeds > > nevertheless with the other two and the message is sent and accepted. > > > VMS logs show valid1 and valid2 as sent, and invalid12 and invalid2 as > > having failed and being requeued. > > > They are not requeued, and no postmaster message is issued to advise > > that invalid1 and invalid2 have not been delivered. > > > I realise that VMS engineers no longer look at this newgroup, so this > > won't get fixed, but at least, users here will know of this potential > > problem. > > SOME of the VMS Engineers still read this newsgroup. More might if we > were a little better about staying on topic. Asking them to wade > through the drivel on "global warming", quantum mechanics, etc, is a > little too much to ask. Reading sixty to a hundred messages per day can > consume a significant amount of time!! > > I'm not going to hold my breath. . . ! Have you considered using a newsreader that displays threads, like Google's? AEF ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:31:41 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages Message-ID: <08df00a9-65e2-4c40-8a60-56a3696fe44a@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> On Jun 17, 3:31 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > JF Mezei wrote: > > Alpha 8.3, TCPIP Services 5.6 > > > send to: > > val...@domain.tld, > > inval...@domain.tld, > > val...@domain.tld, > > inval...@domain.tld > > > VMS makes one TCPIP connection to the domain.tld mail server (as it > > should). It notes that invalid1 and invalid2 are rejected, but proceeds > > nevertheless with the other two and the message is sent and accepted. > > > VMS logs show valid1 and valid2 as sent, and invalid12 and invalid2 as > > having failed and being requeued. > > > They are not requeued, and no postmaster message is issued to advise > > that invalid1 and invalid2 have not been delivered. > > > I realise that VMS engineers no longer look at this newgroup, so this > > won't get fixed, but at least, users here will know of this potential > > problem. > > SOME of the VMS Engineers still read this newsgroup. More might if we > were a little better about staying on topic. Asking them to wade > through the drivel on "global warming", quantum mechanics, etc, is a > little too much to ask. Reading sixty to a hundred messages per day can > consume a significant amount of time!! > > I'm not going to hold my breath. . . ! Richard, Is this your post about hospital care? http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/696cc0cf61337392?dmode=source AEF ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:03:08 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: TPU/EVE performance on remote display + mouse button Message-ID: <485a306a$0$7254$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Alpha VMS 8.3 with decwrindows EVE targetted at a Mac OS-X. On the alpha, the scrolling works fine when displayed locally. But on the Mac, scrolling is rather very slow. (enough that one goes into the Options->Gloval Attributes to disable scrolling, after which, there is a complete screen redraw when you scroll up/down and this is much faster than the scrolling. Is this normal because it goes via a TCPIP link between 2 nodes ? Oris this some sign of a config issue that would result in slow performance of the X display software on the Mac ? Also, has anyone been succesful at defining the scroolling wheel on the mac to act as such while in EVE ? I have tried define "move up" to M4DOWN or M4CLICK but it doesn't seem to work. (the scroll down would be M5DOWn or M5CLICK) Any examples of properly definining the mouse scroll key on a non-VMS workstation ? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:27:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com Subject: Re: TPU/EVE performance on remote display + mouse button Message-ID: On Jun 19, 3:03 am, JF Mezei wrote: > Alpha VMS 8.3 with decwrindows EVE targetted at a Mac OS-X. > > On the alpha, the scrolling works fine when displayed locally. But on > the Mac, scrolling is rather very slow. (enough that one goes into the > Options->Gloval Attributes to disable scrolling, after which, there is a > complete screen redraw when you scroll up/down and this is much faster > than the scrolling. > > Is this normal because it goes via a TCPIP link between 2 nodes ? Oris > this some sign of a config issue that would result in slow performance > of the X display software on the Mac ? Whenever I've had slow scrolling in EVE/TPU, it's been because of a slow network link. I'd check there first... Granted, it could be a flaw in the X-server on the Mac, but that'd be lower on my list to check. > Also, has anyone been succesful at defining the scroolling wheel on the > mac to act as such while in EVE ? > > I have tried define "move up" to M4DOWN or M4CLICK but it doesn't seem > to work. (the scroll down would be M5DOWn or M5CLICK) > > Any examples of properly definining the mouse scroll key on a non-VMS > workstation ? As with all things X, it depends on what "event" is sent to the application. What does XEV show for the events the scrolling wheel generates? -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:01:03 +0100 From: "pos" Subject: Re: VAX/DEC Document Message-ID: <485a82b2$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> JF has been the man for sorting out DEC Document. Another of my old contacts has come up with (gulp) the following - DECWrite for Windows. and it does work on Windows 98 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:45:02 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: "ewilts" wrote in message news:8983502d-4b68-4746-a902-73bb290f8521@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > There is NO disadvantage to forcing speed and duplex at 100Mbps. > There are potential disadvantages to autonegotiating. Why take a > chance? There is no disadvantage to manually configuring a port to 100FD, if you always do it right. However, it does add one more thing to check every time you swap out a faulty switch, move a machine or upgrade a NIC. It depends whether you think manual misconfiguation is more likely than autonegotiation error. I would recommend that whatever way round folk do it, they have some sort of performance monitoring on their network, if it's any kind of production service. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.341 ************************