Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Richard Loken wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, John H. Reinhardt wrote: > > I was thinking of changing my email to another provider even though I've >> had this one for at least 12 years. But if it's because of a configuration >> problem, then other providers may r

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, John H. Reinhardt wrote: I was thinking of changing my email to another provider even though I've had this one for at least 12 years. But if it's because of a configuration problem, then other providers may react the same way so will it do any good? I doubt that changing

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

seems odd some list serves have this problem and some do not out there... which would suggest it may be a matter of the way the listserv is configured. I hear people with yahoo mail complain about some list serves but they also say some cause no problem at all. Most of it is a

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On 11/23/2016 8:00 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2016, Michael Brutman wrote: Gmail routinely marks these emails as spam. And Gmail clearly says: " It has a from address in aol.com but has failed aol.com's required tests for authentication." Digging deeper into the header one

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

Ditto although my timing was odd and I may have gotten the notice prior to replying.  I emailed Jay off list but understandably he should be having some family time during this holiday break and not having to worry about us right now :-) Hopefully there's a log or something noting what the mail

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

Weird I got one of these notices today when I replayed to a thread On Nov 23, 2016 7:02 PM, "Cameron Kaiser" wrote: > > > Gmail routinely marks these emails as spam. And Gmail clearly says: " > It > > > has a from address in aol.com but has failed aol.com's required tests > for > > > authentica

Re: Fan deal?

On 11/23/2016 01:57 PM, Al Kossow wrote: > "noise 48dB, speed 5000 RPM" > > Don't be in the same room with these for long > > Papst is a good brand, though. > > Weird Stuff had some 6" metal 110v ones for $10/ea so I bought a > bunch to replace all the sleeve bearing ones that have been seizing

Re: Fan deal?

On 11/23/2016 04:41 PM, Adrian Stoness wrote: > if they were 120v id be interested for work FWIW, I've used 24VDC fans on 12VDC; they still work (these were Panaflos), only the airflow is lower. In some cases, still useful. --Chuck

Happy turkey day to the list

Should we do some sort of tradition of what vintage computing item we're thankful for? If  that's too much of a repeat it could be a vintage project this year that you're thankful for. I know we're all thankful for Jay and classiccmp.org. I'm thankful for my recent successful visit to San Jose.  

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

> > Gmail routinely marks these emails as spam. And Gmail clearly says: " It > > has a from address in aol.com but has failed aol.com's required tests for > > authentication." > > > > Digging deeper into the header one finds: > > > > "Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016, Michael Brutman wrote: > Gmail routinely marks these emails as spam. And Gmail clearly says: " It > has a from address in aol.com but has failed aol.com's required tests for > authentication." > > Digging deeper into the header one finds: > > "Received-SPF: pass (google.com

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > Gmail routinely marks these emails as spam. And Gmail clearly says: " It > has a from address in aol.com but has failed aol.com's required tests for > authentication." > > Digging deeper into the header one finds: > > "Received-SPF: pass

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

Gmail routinely marks these emails as spam. And Gmail clearly says: " It has a from address in aol.com but has failed aol.com's required tests for authentication." Digging deeper into the header one finds: "Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of cctalk-boun...@classiccmp

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, chocolatejolli...@gmail.com wrote: Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and bounces never happen. Is anybody ever going to fix this brain dead, bone headed bug, or can we expect to continue getting memberships disabled every couple of weeks?

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and bounces never happen. Is anybody ever going to fix this brain dead, bone headed bug, or can we expect to continue getting memberships disabled every couple of

Re: Fan deal?

if they were 120v id be interested for work On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Al Kossow wrote: > > Don't be in the same room with these for long > > It'd be a lot quieter than anything I have powered on in the rack ATM. > > mcl >

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

no the only one that gets bounced is me. and I have to re enable it every so often not a lot though just sometimes In a message dated 11/23/2016 4:57:44 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, charles.unix@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Ian Finder wrote: > >> Not an expert on mailing lists, but I wonder if the fact that gmail always >> puts COURYHOUSE into the spam folder due to AOL weirdness is the signal >> source for the bounce? >> > > ^^^ Mis-att

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and bounces never happen. Is anybody ever going to fix this brain dead, bone headed bug, or can we expect to continue getting memberships disabled every couple of weeks? On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Ian Finder wrote: Not an expert on

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

> Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and bounc$ Reliable? Maybe. There _are_ a few things I count on it for. (Antisocial things, but if reliability per se is your goodness criterion) If you really feel so strongly about it that you're willing to (by implicati

RE: Membership disabled due to bounces

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ian Finder > Sent: 23 November 2016 23:10 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: Membership disabled due to bounces > > +1 - this is getting stupid. 4th time I've had t

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

+1 - this is getting stupid. 4th time I've had to sign up again... On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 14:45 Charles Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:39 PM, wrote: > > > Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and > > bounces never happen. Is anybody ever going to fix t

Re: iRMX II lives!

On 11/23/16 2:51 PM, Rico Pajarola wrote: > woot! \o/ > > Any chance of making this available? > yes, as soon as I can make an image that doesn't have anyone's personal files on it.

Re: iRMX II lives!

woot! \o/ Any chance of making this available? On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Al Kossow wrote: > Used Dave's emulator to image the hd in an Intel SYP310 and to my > surprise it had an iRMX II (286) development toolchain on it. The > MAME guys got it running in simulation in about 30 minutes.

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:39 PM, wrote: > Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and > bounces never happen. Is anybody ever going to fix this brain dead, bone > headed bug, or can we expect to continue getting memberships disabled every > couple of weeks? > > Not an e

Membership disabled due to bounces

Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and bounces never happen. Is anybody ever going to fix this brain dead, bone headed bug, or can we expect to continue getting memberships disabled every couple of weeks?

Re: Fan deal?

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Al Kossow wrote: > Don't be in the same room with these for long It'd be a lot quieter than anything I have powered on in the rack ATM. mcl

Re: Fan deal?

On 23/11/2016 21:41, "Chuck Guzis" wrote: > Dunno if this will appeal to any of the readership, but Electronics > Goldmine is offering a box of 30 new Papst 80 mm 24 volt fans for $10. > > http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G21651A > > I like Papst as a good brand. I jus

Re: Fan deal?

"noise 48dB, speed 5000 RPM" Don't be in the same room with these for long Papst is a good brand, though. Weird Stuff had some 6" metal 110v ones for $10/ea so I bought a bunch to replace all the sleeve bearing ones that have been seizing up in my tape oven. On 11/23/16 1:41 PM, Chuck Guzis wro

Re: TRIAD (was RE: Some scrapper in NC has an old machine Labled TRIAD he is scrapping

Let me know what more pictures or information would be helpful in knowing if it is worth saving. I can take pictures of the terminals.but if anything specific is needed off of the Triad main let me know. On Nov 23, 2016 11:58 AM, "william degnan" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jay We

Fan deal?

Dunno if this will appeal to any of the readership, but Electronics Goldmine is offering a box of 30 new Papst 80 mm 24 volt fans for $10. http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G21651A I like Papst as a good brand. I just have no use of 30 24 volt fans. --Chuck

Fwd: curious claim questioned [was RE: Free IBM system/1(?) in eastern US.]

Forwarded Message Subject: curious claim questioned [was RE: Free IBM system/1(?) in eastern US.] Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:00:07 + From: Rich Alderson Reply-To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Po

Re: Novell was Re: TRIAD

On 11/23/16 12:06 PM, Sam O'nella wrote: > I think it's the hardware or server company folks might have an attachment > towards. I only saw novell 3.x and up but it was all standard x86 arch. Did > they support other platforms? really early Novell servers were 68000 based http://www.computerh

Novell was Re: TRIAD

I think it's the hardware or server company folks might have an attachment towards. I only saw novell 3.x and up but it was all standard x86 arch. Did they support other platforms? Original message  Not many here seem to be into preserving Novell servers and such.    I could be

iRMX II lives!

Used Dave's emulator to image the hd in an Intel SYP310 and to my surprise it had an iRMX II (286) development toolchain on it. The MAME guys got it running in simulation in about 30 minutes. Anyone have any documentation or software distributions? iRMX development stuff is extremely hard to find

Re: Y Combinator is restoring one of Alan Kay's Xerox Alto machines

saw it earlyer :D On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Curious Marc wrote: > Session 11 video: > https://youtu.be/OKakermaQ68 > > > On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Curious Marc > wrote: > > > > Session 9 here gets us into microcode RAM trouble: > > https://youtu.be/VWQ7hbV7bN0 > > Ken’s correspondin

Re: Y Combinator is restoring one of Alan Kay's Xerox Alto machines

Session 11 video: https://youtu.be/OKakermaQ68 > On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Curious Marc wrote: > > Session 9 here gets us into microcode RAM trouble: > https://youtu.be/VWQ7hbV7bN0 > Ken’s corresponding blog article > http://www.righto.com/2016/10/restoring-ycs-xerox-alto-day-9-tracing.html

Re: Reverse-engineering WD1000, WD1001 hard disk controllers

On 23.11.2016 19:30, Al Kossow wrote: On 11/23/16 3:46 AM, jos wrote: I added a pic of a wd1001-85 and prom contents on ftp://ftp.dreesen.ch/WD1001 what system was this from ? No idea... Bought from a fellow collector as a a loose PCB. It was set up for SA1000 disks, not MFM. Jos

Help! Looking for rolls of paper tape for teletypes, twx and telex all

Help! Looking for rolls ofpaper tape for teletypes, twx and telex all widths. As we have an array of these machines at SMECC and like to demo them and always need tape to print on and punch! Size varies between just smaller than 3/6 inch to one inch wide and

Re: Reverse-engineering WD1000, WD1001 hard disk controllers

On 11/23/16 3:46 AM, jos wrote: > I added a pic of a wd1001-85 and prom contents on ftp://ftp.dreesen.ch/WD1001 > what system was this from ?

Re: ISO: PDP-11/40 LTC and Stack Limit options

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Henk Gooijen wrote: > > > > Van: Guy Sotomayor Jr > Verzonden: woensdag 23 november 2016 17:29 > Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts classiccmp.org> > Onderwerp: Re: ISO: PDP-11/40 LTC and Stack Limit

RE: ISO: PDP-11/40 LTC and Stack Limit options

Van: Guy Sotomayor Jr Verzonden: woensdag 23 november 2016 17:29 Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Onderwerp: Re: ISO: PDP-11/40 LTC and Stack Limit options > On Nov 23, 2016, at 7:11 AM, william degnan wrote: > > >

Re: ISO: PDP-11/40 LTC and Stack Limit options

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 7:11 AM, william degnan wrote: > > > 3) I would not mind getting something like Guy's UA11 to test with. Are > these available? > Yes, they are still available (along with KM11s) TTFN - Guy

Re: TRIAD (was RE: Some scrapper in NC has an old machine Labled TRIAD he is scrapping

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jay West wrote: > The "scrapper" in NC that has the Triad contacted me directly, he had seen > the discussion of the system in the classiccmp archives. > > He wasn't sure how to get his contact info out there, so he emailed me with > his name and direct phone numb

Re: ISO: PDP-11/40 LTC and Stack Limit options

> > >> Interesting. I suppose the LTC on the M7856 could also be disabled... > I'll have to try that and see if it works. The DL11-W manual doesn't seem > to cover any special installation procedures for the 11/40, and the 11/40 > System Manual describes Slot 9 as a "SMALL PERIPHERAL CONTROLLER (

TRIAD (was RE: Some scrapper in NC has an old machine Labled TRIAD he is scrapping

The "scrapper" in NC that has the Triad contacted me directly, he had seen the discussion of the system in the classiccmp archives. He wasn't sure how to get his contact info out there, so he emailed me with his name and direct phone number. I don't want to just post it publicly (although it may a

Re: for sale/trade: big list of both old and (relatively) new, deadline: end of November (ideally)

What I should probably point out... On 21-NOV-2016 at 13:24 I wrote: The following is for sale, or trade possibly. (I've tried to send this earlier, but it didn't appear in the list, so this is my second try to post this...) Most of the listed items I've used together with SGI IRIX and HP/Comp

Re: Reverse-engineering WD1000, WD1001 hard disk controllers

On 23.11.2016 01:03, Eric Smith wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:14 AM, jos wrote: The MFM disk controller for later version Lilith's is clearly based on a WD1001-05. But uses a 8x305 iso 8x300. All of the WD1001 controllers I've seen use 8X305. Some later WD1000 use 8X305 also. I've disas

curious claim questioned [was RE: Free IBM system/1(?) in eastern US.]

From: jim stephens Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:21 PM > the Ultimate system was the only Non IBM written supervisor / system > that ran on mainframes at the time. You're going to have to be more specific than that. At what time? On what mainframe(s)? Are you saying that by the time Ulti