[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On 2023-05-27 16:38, Alexander Schreiber via cctalk wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:30:52PM -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 5/25/23 10:06, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: The way SPARK works is that you have code and then can also provide proofs for the code.  Proofs are you might exp

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:30:52PM -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 5/25/23 10:06, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: > > > > > The way SPARK works is that you have code and then can also provide > > proofs for the code.  Proofs are you might expect are *hard* to write > > and in many cases

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On 5/25/23 13:38, geneb via cctalk wrote: That wasn't a software problem, that was a criminally cheap management problem - they deleted the comparator for the AoA indexer to save money. Yes, but probably not Boeing's.  AoA disagree was an available option that most /airlines/ explicitly elect

[cctalk] MCAS (was: Re: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.)

On 5/25/23 12:30, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: ...and we still get gems like the Boeing 737MAX... I get your point, but it's a bad example.  MCAS worked precisely as specified, and while one could have a discussion regarding if those specifications were wrong, the logic was that a MCAS fai

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

> On May 25, 2023, at 4:38 PM, geneb via cctalk wrote: > > On Thu, 25 May 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >> On 5/25/23 10:06, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: >>> >> >>> The way SPARK works is that you have code and then can also provide >>> proofs for the code. Proofs are you might

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On Thu, 25 May 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 5/25/23 10:06, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: The way SPARK works is that you have code and then can also provide proofs for the code.  Proofs are you might expect are *hard* to write and in many cases are *huge* relative to the actual

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

Just wondering what's marking Guy's posts with ***SPAM***. It's beginning to look like a Monty Python sketch. --Chuck

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On 5/25/23 10:06, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: > > The way SPARK works is that you have code and then can also provide > proofs for the code.  Proofs are you might expect are *hard* to write > and in many cases are *huge* relative to the actual code (at least if > you want a platinum level pro

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On 5/25/23 10:00, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 5/25/23 08:58, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: ADA and SPARK (a stripped down version of ADA) are used heavily in embedded that has to be "safety certified".  SPARK also allows the code to be "proven" (as in you can write formal proofs to ensu

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On 5/25/23 08:58, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: > > ADA and SPARK (a stripped down version of ADA) are used heavily in > embedded that has to be "safety certified".  SPARK also allows the code > to be "proven" (as in you can write formal proofs to ensure that the > code does what you say it does

[cctalk] Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Getting floppy images to/from real floppy disks.

On 5/25/23 07:55, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 5/25/23 04:52, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote: For the programming language, I stick with C, not C++, not Python and plain old makefiles--that's what the support libraries are written in. I don't use an IDE, lest I become reliant on one--a text e

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] RQDX3's: Lessons learned.

Yeah at this point pop it open, unlock the heads (the white cam down at the base there, trip it) and get the heads to move. They should smoothly move with a bit of effort. Then fire it up and see if anything works. I'm going to run this one for a bit in the backup pdp11 here, see if it runs if

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] RQDX3's: Lessons learned.

I’d just like to say that 25 years ago, RD53’s were *EVIL*. I do have one that I should try taking apart. I failed to back it up the first time I powered it on. It didn’t boot the second time. ESDI or SCSI is the way to go, at least that was true 20-25 years ago. Today I’d be inclined to sa

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: PKBACK Floppies?

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: You have that right Sellam, the more that I look into this, based on Fred’s info, I think that I need to get MS-DOS running under DOSBOX-X. Probably worthwhile. Although the truncation of file content after EOF during concatenation is somewhat

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: PKBACK Floppies?

On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:59 AM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 11:45 AM Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: > >>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: >>> So far I’ve tackled one split zip. I wasn’t having any luck with >>> the version of PKZIP that I assume

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: PKBACK Floppies?

FILE1.ZIP+FILE2.ZIP+FILE3.ZIP+FILE4.ZIP+FILE5.ZIP COMBINED.ZIP THAT will give you a corrupted file! Concatenated copy (COPY with '+') has a behavior that you need to take into account. PC/MS-DOS 1.00 kept track of the file size with a course granularity. (logical sectors, not bytes) Therefore,

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: PKBACK Floppies?

On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:44 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: >> So far I’ve tackled one split zip. I wasn’t having any luck with the >> version of PKZIP that I assume created this. I copied the files into a >> directory, and did COPY FILE1.ZI

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: PKBACK Floppies?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 11:45 AM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > > So far I’ve tackled one split zip. I wasn’t having any luck with > > the version of PKZIP that I assume created this. I copied the files > > into a directory, and did COPY > > FIL

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: PKBACK Floppies?

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: So far I’ve tackled one split zip. I wasn’t having any luck with the version of PKZIP that I assume created this. I copied the files into a directory, and did COPY FILE1.ZIP+FILE2.ZIP+FILE3.ZIP+FILE4.ZIP+FILE5.ZIP COMBINED.ZIP THAT will give

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: CD-R, DVD-R media available

Kodak Gold CD-R’s were supposed to be the best as I recall. The Verbatim DataLifePlus are definitely long lived. I can’t remember if I’ve found any Sony or TDK disks in the stuff I’ve recovered recently, I believe I used both on occasion, but not for archives (though I’ve recovered CD’s I didn

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: PKBACK Floppies?

> On Jan 31, 2023, at 1:26 PM, David Glover-Aoki via cctalk > wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2023, at 9:37 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk > wrote: >> >> Some of the floppies I’m recovering data look to be either a multi-part ZIP >> file, or something. Was this a separate product from PKZIP? I’m not s

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

> On Jan 31, 2023, at 2:19 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > >> On Jan 31, 2023, at 5:03 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> On Jan 31, 2023, at 10:22 AM, Steve Lewis via cctalk >> wrote: >>> >>> I know the first generation CD/DVD disc are known to "go bad" - the >>> material itself s

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

> On Jan 31, 2023, at 5:03 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk > wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2023, at 10:22 AM, Steve Lewis via cctalk > wrote: >> >> I know the first generation CD/DVD disc are known to "go bad" - the >> material itself somehow degrades and becomes unreadable by modern drives. >> I'm not

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

On Jan 31, 2023, at 10:36 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > Half-inch open-reel 9 track tape seems to withstand the test of time as > well as anything. > > The problem with the high-capacity tape used for server backup will be > finding drives and controllers compatible with it in years to

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

On Jan 31, 2023, at 10:22 AM, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote: > > I know the first generation CD/DVD disc are known to "go bad" - the > material itself somehow degrades and becomes unreadable by modern drives. > I'm not sure if that's still the case with newer or more modern CD/DVD disc > (not jus

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: USB Attached 5.25" drives?

On 1/20/2023 2:31 PM, Zane Healy wrote: Realistically that’s good enough Jim, though I find the way the 3.5” floppies are working to be quite useful. I can take a look at what’s on them, and in many cases, I just pull the files off. As there is no reason to image them. No doubt.  Don't get

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: USB Attached 5.25" drives?

> On Jan 20, 2023, at 11:19 AM, Jim Brain via cctalk > wrote: > > On 1/20/2023 1:05 PM, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote: >> Using the Greaseweazel is a two stage process. The GW itself connects to >> the actual drive and just records the flux transitions as a series of zeros >> and ones. This

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

Confirmed that the LINC in question is now at the Computer Museum @ System Source This one is in great condition (except for the large live spider) Pictures from unloading the truck https://photos.app.goo.gl/2GvqTQukSEEnyoQp8 Bob Roswell mus...@syssrc.com https://muse

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

Cool! Let me know when you get it running, I've got a box of LINCTapes I wanted to read from the pdp12. CZ On 1/19/2023 4:29 PM, rar--- via cctalk wrote: We (Computer Museum @ System Source) picked up this unit today. Here are a few snapshots after we pulled the unit off of the truck. https:/

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

The machine is in great condition. It was (carefully) turned on this evening! Blinking Lights! Bob Roswell

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

You got an amazing bargain. I was expecting at least a magnitude higher price. On Fri, 20 Jan 2023, 8:29 am rar--- via cctalk, wrote: > We (Computer Museum @ System Source) picked up this unit today. > Here are a few snapshots after we pulled the unit off of the truck. > > https://photos.app.goo

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

We (Computer Museum @ System Source) picked up this unit today. Here are a few snapshots after we pulled the unit off of the truck. https://photos.app.goo.gl/2GvqTQukSEEnyoQp8 Bob Roswell

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

it was not LSSM, i asked one of their docents last night. — .hush Got interesting stuff to sell? Let me know! Looking for DEC, IBM, CDC, SGI, Data General, and more! > On Wednesday, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:43 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk > mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org)> wrote: > On 1/17/23 21:34, Wayne S

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

I am told System Source north of Baltimore, MD On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:43 PM Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 1/17/23 21:34, Wayne S via cctalk wrote: > > Another forum said a museum > > in Pa won it. > > LSSM (Large Scale Systems Museum)? I just donated some > stuff to them. > > Jon > >

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

On 1/17/23 21:34, Wayne S via cctalk wrote: Another forum said a museum in Pa won it. LSSM  (Large Scale Systems Museum)?  I just donated some stuff to them. Jon

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

A smaller one. On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, Bill Degnan wrote: Didnt they already have a LINC? B On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 12:15 AM Mike Loewen via cctalk wrote: No, it went to the System Source museum in Huntsville, MD. On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: So it must have gon

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

Didnt they already have a LINC? B On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 12:15 AM Mike Loewen via cctalk wrote: > > No, it went to the System Source museum in Huntsville, MD. > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > > > So it must have gone to the LSSM. It did not go to kennett classic. > Ma

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

Does it have a floating point unit? You could mine bitcoins C On 1/17/2023 8:55 PM, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 5:52 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: That bwas a good price I think. Yes, just imagine all the cool things you could do wit

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

Correction: Hunt Valley, MD. On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, Mike Loewen via cctalk wrote: No, it went to the System Source museum in Huntsville, MD. On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: So it must have gone to the LSSM. It did not go to kennett classic. Maybe the "computer chu

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

No, it went to the System Source museum in Huntsville, MD. On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: So it must have gone to the LSSM. It did not go to kennett classic. Maybe the "computer church" in Parkesburg bought it. BIll On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:35 PM Wayne S via cctalk

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

So it must have gone to the LSSM. It did not go to kennett classic. Maybe the "computer church" in Parkesburg bought it. BIll On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:35 PM Wayne S via cctalk wrote: > Another forum said a museum > in Pa won it. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 17, 2023, at 17:55, Ton

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

Another forum said a museum in Pa won it. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 17, 2023, at 17:55, Tony Jones via cctalk > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 5:52 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> That bwas a good price I think. >> > > Yes, just imagine all the coo

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 5:52 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > That bwas a good price I think. > Yes, just imagine all the cool things you could do with it :-)

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

I planned to bid but forgot...live pretty nearby too I could have picked up. Oh well. Thatbwas a good price I think. B On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, 8:44 PM Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > Yes, but they have to move it now! > > Zane > > > > > On Jan 17, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > c

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] LINC-8 sells for $2,150

Yes, but they have to move it now! Zane > On Jan 17, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk > wrote: > > That LINC-8 sold for $2,150. A total bargain. > > https://hibid.com/lot/143159802/digital-equipment-corp-linc-eight-vintage > > Sellam

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: long lived media (Was: Damage to CD-R from CD Sleeve

On Jan 17, 2023, at 2:02 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: > > If you mean CHKDSK.EXE, it's broadly equivalent to Unix fsck plus a surface > scan, and all fsck does is check and repair filesystem _metadata_. If the > metadata is corrupt then that's a good sign that the data itself is also > to

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 03:45, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: > I have a memory of installing Windows 95 on a monochrome 386SX laptop > w/4MB of RAM in August, 1995 at McMurdo because that's the equipment > we had on hand when Win95 arrived on the continent. It was > unpleasantly slow but it did run

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 11:52 AM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > Win95/Win98 would be happy with a PC/AT 286, with appropriate RAM > > Nope. 32-bit only. 386DX or later. I tried it and benchmarked it at > the time of release. And it beat WfWg 3.11 by a significant margin, to > everyone's amazemen

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 at 07:54, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Well, if you want to pedantic about it, you certainly could emulate a > 32-bit processor on any reasonably Turing-equivalent processor, given > sufficient memory. It might be incredibly slow, but you could do it. Noted Australian Mac

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 23:41, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > You've apparently never heard of Tony Duell: last I read he was running > > Windows 98 on an IBM PC/XT or something like that :) Linux on a heavily-upgraded PC-AT with a '386 b

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On 12/22/22 22:31, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Software development calls for more speed, for decent compile, assmble, and link times. Come on Fred. You have been around long enough to know this isn't really true. It's nice to have but we did just fine developing real software (not Candy

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Friday, December 23, 2022, 01:54:57 AM EST, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 12/22/22 18:45, Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: > Shirley none of you are serious about a 32-bit (at least partially) > operating system being able to execute on a 286 processor. > > You couldn't even run Window

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On 12/22/22 18:45, Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: > Shirley none of you are serious about a 32-bit (at least partially) > operating system being able to execute on a 286 processor. > > You couldn't even run Windows 3.1 in Enhanced mode on a 286 processor. Well, if you want to pedantic about it, you c

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:41 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > You've apparently never heard of Tony Duell: last I read he was running > > Windows 98 on an IBM PC/XT or something like that :) > > Tony, > are you around? QSL The only 'c

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

Win95/Win98 would be happy with a PC/AT 286, with appropriate RAM On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: I don't think "happy" is how I would describe that. Would it run? Maybe. Would I want to run it like that? Nope. Not at all. I stand corrected. "Run", no. "limp along", yes I

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

> On 12/22/2022 8:45 PM CST Glen Slick via cctalk > > Shirley none of you are serious about a 32-bit (at least partially) > operating system being able to execute on a 286 processor. > > You couldn't even run Windows 3.1 in Enhanced mode on a 286 processor. > > > Well, there's always Linux o

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

Seems a bit impossible to me as well but Fred has made computers do things that would make ordinary men involuntarily lose their bladder so I look forward to the story/explanation. Sellam On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 6:46 PM Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 6:16 PM Fred Cisin via

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 6:16 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > >> Win95/Win98 would be happy with a PC/AT 286, with appropriate RAM > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > > I don't think "happy" is how I would describe that. > > Would it run? Maybe. > > Would I want to run it li

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

Win95/Win98 would be happy with a PC/AT 286, with appropriate RAM On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: I don't think "happy" is how I would describe that. Would it run? Maybe. Would I want to run it like that? Nope. Not at all. I stand corrected. "Run", no. "limp along", yes

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On 12/22/22 2:24 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: For PC’s, being able to run WinXP is an interesting cutoff Why use a cut off that's based on a date? After all, the list is a moving / sliding window. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On 12/22/22 3:41 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Win95/Win98 would be happy with a PC/AT 286, with appropriate RAM I don't think "happy" is how I would describe that. Would it run? Maybe. Would I want to run it like that? Nope. Not at all. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: On 12/22/2022 5:02 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Another possible exception for banning XP: I think that the OQO is interesting enough to call for inclusion. It is a handheld, running XP.   Screen slides partway off to reveal a keyboard. /

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On 12/22/2022 5:02 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Another possible exception for banning XP: I think that the OQO is interesting enough to call for inclusion. It is a handheld, running XP.   Screen slides partway off to reveal a keyboard. /me looks at his OQO 2, which still works (and has X

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

We used to shun anything newer than and including the IBM PC but time.marches on. You're safe if you discuss systems produced before 1990. After that put an OT in the front of your subject so as not to offend the purists. Personally I think anything built after 1995 is too new for cctalk, but th

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: You've apparently never heard of Tony Duell: last I read he was running Windows 98 on an IBM PC/XT or something like that :) Tony, are you around? My experience was that Windoze 3.00 was the last that could be installed on an 8088. Win 3.1

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:31 PM Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > For PC’s, being able to run WinXP is an interesting cutoff, and I think > makes sense. Zane > You've apparently never heard of Tony Duell: last I read he was running Windows 98 on an IBM PC/XT or something like that :) Sellam

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Dec 22, 2022, at 11:29 AM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 5:35 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk > wrote: >> We used to shun anything newer than and including the IBM PC but >> time.marches on. You're safe if you discuss systems produced before 1990. >> After that put an

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 9:51 AM Zane Healy wrote: > > Having seen another of your posts, I’m left to wonder how many of us had > our eyes opened by this list back in 1997. In my case having worked on > some systems decidedly “vintage” systems, prior to joining the list helped > spark my interest.

[cctalk] Re: [SPAM] Re: what is on topic?

Anything up to 64-bit has been on topic over the life of this list. Though 64-bit initially was pushing it, less so now, as I’d definitely consider something like a Sun Ultra 2, or DEC Alpha to be very much on topic. I definitely participated in discussions of early Macintosh systems back arou

RE: Spam

I actually thought the spam most was better than some of the usual postings on here! -Original Message- From: cctalk On Behalf Of Peter Coghlan via cctalk Sent: 01 September 2020 09:01 To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Spam Paul Koning wrote: > >

Re: Spam

Paul Koning wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk > > wrote: > > > > Anybody else on cctech/cctalk receive a blatant spam today from an outfit > > called "SparkPost" with "OptIn Live" in the subject? > > > > Regards, > > Peter Coghlan. > > Nope. > > Keep in mind that cr

RE: Spam

lk On Behalf Of Peter Coghlan > via cctalk > Sent: 01 September 2020 09:11 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: Spam > > Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Aug 31, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk > wrote: > > > > &g

Re: Spam

Paul Koning wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk > > wrote: > > > > Anybody else on cctech/cctalk receive a blatant spam today from an outfit > > called "SparkPost" with "OptIn Live" in the subject? > > > > Regards, > > Peter Coghlan. > > Nope. > > Keep in mind that cr

Re: Spam

week it stopped. Dwight From: cctalk on behalf of Tom Hunter via cctalk Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 7:28 PM To: jim stephens ; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Spam Today I received two empty emails from Bill Degnan via this list

Re: Spam

As a moderator, I am quite sure that no spam actually came through the list. On a few occasions the spam has come from a list member's address and gets passed straight through, but that's quite rare. However the number of spam posts to the list exceeds real posts by a factor of about 10. So it's q

Re: Spam

Today I received two empty emails from Bill Degnan via this list. No subject and no message body. Googled put them into the Spam folder. Tom Hunter On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:38 AM jim stephens via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On 8/31/2020 3:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: >

Re: Spam

On 8/31/2020 3:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: Anybody else on cctech/cctalk receive a blatant spam today from an outfit called "SparkPost" with "OptIn Live" in the subject? Regards, Peter Coghlan. i've found that someone who has had their emails in someones inbox may get their email

Re: Spam

Yeah, I run spf and DKIM on the crystel.com domain here, I'm not giving up my personal bit of string to give google control of my mail. SPF has helped a lot to be honest, every once in awhile I get a surge of reports from the big guys and I know someone's trying to spoof my From: Annoying, but

Re: Spam

> On Aug 31, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk > wrote: > > Anybody else on cctech/cctalk receive a blatant spam today from an outfit > called "SparkPost" with "OptIn Live" in the subject? > > Regards, > Peter Coghlan. Nope. Keep in mind that criminals often forge source addresses

Re: Spam

Gmail flags a lot of messages from cctalk/tech as spam but I did not get that one On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:38 PM Doug Jackson via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Not me either, > > But I pass all of my email through gmail, and it filters out all of the > spam for me anyway. > > A couple

Re: Spam

Not me either, But I pass all of my email through gmail, and it filters out all of the spam for me anyway. A couple of years ago, some helpful person selected my email for sending millions of messages and it broke my email environment, the only way I could get it working again was to either aband

RE: Spam

Not me -Original Message- From: cctalk On Behalf Of Peter Coghlan via cctalk Sent: 01 September 2020 00:55 To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: Spam Anybody else on cctech/cctalk receive a blatant spam today from an outfit called "SparkPost" with "OptIn Live" in the subject? Regards, Pete

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

> Firstly, there are many types of unwanted e-mail, and using the term > SPAM to cover them all is a dis-service. Using the term SPAM to cover any of them is a disservice - to Hormel, who has been relatively gracious about the use of "spam" for something other than their product. Of course, posti

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred > Cisin > > Sent: 11 August 2016 16:38 > > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > > > Subject: Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for th

RE: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred Cisin > Sent: 11 August 2016 16:38 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?] > > On Thu, 11 Aug

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

I remember the first time I encountered spam1995 or so using my old CompuServe account. One day I was like "what is all this crap?" Now that was some serious spam going on then. Today's is nothing like that if you ask me. I have a nice filter system on my private server. Botta bing. B --

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote: > > >> Spam will not stop until the last spammer is dead. > > > > Actually, it's really simple to stop spam. Simple, not easy. > > > > You just need to delegate responsibility along with authority when > > handing out netblocks, registering domai

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, geneb wrote: I think it would be more effective to stuff the spammer into a Brazen Bull and then force his children/family members to light the fire. Televise it across all media outlets. Spam should slow to a tiny, tiny, trickle after one or two of these little events...

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

>> Spam will not stop until the last spammer is dead. > > Actually, it's really simple to stop spam. Simple, not easy. > > You just need to delegate responsibility along with authority when > handing out netblocks, registering domain names, and the like. When there were only tens of thousands of

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Mouse wrote: Spam will not stop until the last spammer is dead. Actually, it's really simple to stop spam. Simple, not easy. You just need to delegate responsibility along with authority when handing out netblocks, registering domain names, and the like. I think it woul

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

* Mouse [160810 21:59]: [..SNIP..] > I suppose that's what happens when you put the Department of Commerce > in charge of something. As long as it doesn't collapse far enough to > stop concentrating money in the hands of large corporations, there's > nothing wrong with it. > > /~\ The ASCII

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

>> Actually, it's really simple to stop spam. Simple, not easy. >> You just need to delegate responsibility along with authority when >> handing out netblocks, registering domain names, and the like. > I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The trouble with email is that th$ That's a techni

Re: Spam [was Re: still looking for that stuff?]

> On Aug 10, 2016, at 8:57 PM, Mouse wrote: > >> Spam will not stop until the last spammer is dead. > > Actually, it's really simple to stop spam. Simple, not easy. > > You just need to delegate responsibility along with authority when > handing out netblocks, registering domain names, and th

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: memory map for RT-11 v 5

On 7/26/2016 7:17 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: On Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 14::29:59 -0700, Don North wrote: >On 7/24/2016 8:06 AM, william degnan wrote: >On Jul 24, 2016 8:58 AM, "Jerome H. Fine" wrote: >On Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 18:02:44 - 0400, william degnan wrote: Is there a mi

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: memory map for RT-11 v 5

On Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 14::29:59 -0700, Don North wrote: >On 7/24/2016 8:06 AM, william degnan wrote: >On Jul 24, 2016 8:58 AM, "Jerome H. Fine" wrote: >On Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 18:02:44 - 0400, william degnan wrote: Is there a minimum memory requirement for RT-11 v5? I wa

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: Can Windows 98SE run on an Intel I7 with SATA gard drives?

>m...@markesystems.com wrote: Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:44:44 -0500 From: "Jerome H. Fine" Subject: Can Windows 98SE run on an Intel I7 with SATA gard drives? I run Windows 98SE on a 14 year old Pentium III. I have replaced the power supply twice and all three hard disk drives. QUESTION:

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: Software for DEC MINC systems

>Jay Jaeger wrote: On 12/29/2015 2:47 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: I have had several folks express the desire for them. Over the day or few days (we have a gathering coming up tomorrow, and not sure I will get to it today, so it could be as late as next week), I will load them up on my Google driv

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: Advice and Suggestions for a Debug Feature

>Tapley, Mark wrote: On Dec 16, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: Note that for many CPUs, adding values (a push) results in the stack pointer becoming numerically smaller (unsigned of course). Internally, the code would handle the actual arithmetic. (Warning: assembly language noob

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: Software for small-memory PDP-11s?

>Paul Koning wrote: On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: Hey all -- Now that I have my PDP-11/05 running nicely, I'm curious what others are running on small systems like this -- until this point I've only played with larger (i.e. at least 28KW memory) systems. I have only 8KW of

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: How many use old browsers (e.g. =< Netscape 4 or IE 6) as their ONLY source of web content?

On 3 July 2015 at 18:22, Jerome H. Fine wrote: > I understand that Netscape has been replaced by Mozilla. HOWEVER, > since CHROME seems to be the most widely used, would CHROME > be able to support the retention of ALL of my old e-mails and posts > from usenet? Over the past 15 years, I probably

  1   2   >