arachne-digest Tuesday, January 11 2000 Volume 01 : Number 938
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:58:01 -0800
From: Clarence Verge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (OT) memory management.
L.D. Best wrote:
>
> Clarence,
>
> I've seen mention of dropping the page frame, and wondered about why UBM
> should be selected when NOUMB is the default.
>
> But when I go to Manifest it clearly shows that the page frame 64K is
> placed *above* the 1Mb portion of memory. So getting rid of the page
> frame wouldn't make any addition memory available for loading EPPPD
> high.
Hi L.D.;
I think you must have misinterpreted the Manifest display. It definitely
should go above the standard 640k low memory barrier but it must be placed
in the first meg.
- - Clarence Verge
- --
- - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
- --
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:43:58 -0800
From: Clarence Verge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Acrodos
Edenyard wrote:
>
> Assuming that GS is already installed (mine is), all that is
> really needed is a means of running a batch file and passing the
> name of a PS file to it - isn't it?
Hi Ron;
That SEEMS right but I won't say "YES" until I try it.
- - Clarence Verge
- --
- - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
- --
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:15:31 -0400
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:41:22 +0100 (CET), (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
Your input explaining how the system works was very straight-forward and
enlightening.
> The biggest problem is the extreme st*pidness of the american government
> conecrning crypto regulation.
> American programs which are exported can only use 40 bit keys.
> These are very insecure.
> Inside of the US and programs not made in the US use 128 bit keys, wich are
> secure ...
> PS: Rumour has it, that the USA government will drop these stupid crypto
> export regulations. (because they compomize free market, because US companys
> can't sell strong crypto to the rest of the world, while non US companies can)
I agree that the regulations are absurd and very outdated and most certainly
should be abolished. I don't have any idea how the US Government ever
envisioned any attempts at enforcement anyway. Isn't it a simple matter for
someone outside the U.S. to simply click on a link on a U.S. web site, or
visit an ftp site located in the U.S. and download an encryption program
prohibited from export?
Sam Heywood
Sam Heywood
> CU, Ricsi
> --
> Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
> -=> Beware of the opinion of someone without any facts <=-
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:54:14 -0400
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:33:40 -0800, Jim Varnum wrote:
> Hi Sam...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:44:44 +0100, Sam Heywood wrote:
>> Information I found at both sites was very interesting. Both sites speak
>> of public and private keys. Here is what I don't understand:
>> If I should encrypt a message by using a public key, and then transmit the
>> message to you, then there is nothing secret about it, because the key is
>> publicly available. On the other hand, if I should encrypt a message
>> by use of a private key, and if only you and I know what our private key is,
>> then we can encrypt and decrypt secret messages to each other. A public key
>> has no security value whatsoever.
> Oooops. This isn't how it works exactly. This is called 'asymmetrical
> encryption'. The public/private thing works like this:
> 1. You request a key set from the encrpyption program.
> 2. It generates 2 keys, 1 public and 1 private.
> 3. The important thing is that a message encrypted with one key can ONLY
> be decrypted with the other. So:
> 4. You make your public key known to all. (that's why you see PGP public key
> info in many peoples signatures)
> 5. If someone wishes to send you an encrypted message they simply use
> your Public Key to encrypt it. Remember, anything encrypted with a
> public key can only be decrypted with your private key. The fact that
> everyone on the net may have access to your public does not matter.
> 6. You receive the message and decrypt it with you private key.
> Obviously you keep your private key VERY private.
> Likewise, if you want to reply to the sender, you would encrypt the
> message with THEIR public key.
> If the key generating function is sound then the security of encryption
> is a function of the key length. That is, an 8 bit key could be broken
> by brute force within 256 tries. Therefore, a 128 or 256 bit key is very
> strong as it would take alot of very powerful computers a long time to
> brute force the code.
> Some asymmetrical techniques allow back doors (like the law enforcement
> access field 'LEAF' in Clipper) something to think about. Recently M$
> was in the hotseat when it was discovered that their key generator
> actually generated a THIRD key called the NSA KEY. Hmmmm.
> One other point to consider. Because of the 'strength' of modern
> asymmetrical encryption techniques, even a relatively short key can
> prove sufficient. The question to ask yourself is: How important is the
> data I want to encrypt?
> If it is a credit card number encrypted with a 128 bit key it would likely
> take a hacker with a room full Pentiums a few years to break. Just to
> find that you only had $1000.00 left on your credit card?? That wouldn't
> even cover the cost of the electricity to crack the card number. (the
> card would've expired by then anyway wouldn't it?)
> All of the above speaks to the technique of asymmetrical encryption
> only. I personally don't buy things on the net and have no experience
> with SSL so I can't comment on the security of that layer. Is it
> possible to sniff the data before it's encrypted? I tend to doubt it but
> I don't know.
> Jim
>> The best method of transmitting secret messages would involve only the sender
>> and the receiver having a copy of a unique randomly generated key. A
>> somewhat less secure, but fairly good method of transmitting secret messages
>> would involve the sender and the receiver agreeing to use a secret password,
>> a pass phrase, or a certain passage from a book to be used as a key for
>> encryption/decryption. No parties other than sender and receiver would have
>> knowledge as to whatever string of characters had been agreed upon for use as
>> a ciphering key.
> This is called symmetrical encryption (like one-time pads) and can be
Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. That is indeed the type of
encryption performed by use of "one-time pads". I refrained from using this
phrase in my original post because I felt too many people would not know
what I am referring to. Or maybe it was because I wanted to avoid the
attention of people who might ask too many questions <g>.
> frighteningly secure as long as both parties gain access to the key
> without leaking it. But it brings up an important point that I totally
> neglected to mention.
> Asymmetrical encryption is ver processor intensive when encryting or
> decrypting messages.
Also very labor-intensive and requiring one's utmost concentration and
attention to detail when doing this kind of work manually. It is very
difficult to do accurately when in high-stress situations.
>To improve efficiency when dealing with long
> messages, it is common to actually encrypt the message using
> 'Symmetrical' encryption and then to encrypt the Symmetrical Key with
> Asymmetrical encryption. That way the faster technique is used to
> encrypt the long message and the Asymmetrical technique to encrypt the
> key.
> Now you have the best of both worlds....Both parties use the same key
> while having a secure way to transmit it.
> I hope this helps.
Yep, that sure does help. I will be looking for some web sites
explaining some more details on this technology.
Sam Heywood
> Jim
> -- Arachne.....Registered.....Life doesn't get any better!!
> -- Pixel32.....Registered.....OOPS!, Life just got better!!
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:54:19 -0400
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:51:00 +0000, Mel Evans, Registered Arachne User wrote:
> Hi Gangue,
<snip>
> The main problem is that I could set up a site that looks as if I could be
> a multi-million dollar company, when in reality I have a corner of a
> shack in a junkyard somewhere, and total assets of a couple of hundred
> dollars. How would you know from the website?
Howdy Mel:
Is this a problem? Sounds like a pretty bright entrepreneurial idea to
me. There are a lot of people out there who are running a successful
web business based on the same kind of subterfuge. There is nothing
illegal about attempting to generate a public image of your company by
making it out to be a much larger enterprise than it really is. As
long as you do not falsely advertise your products, and as long as you
are fair in your business dealings with your customers, you might do quite
well. Just be careful not to tell the tax man that you are one of the
really fat cats!
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:25:35 -0400
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:01:10 +0100 (MET), Bernie wrote:
<snip>
> The messages aren't secret that's not the point. The point is to create
> messages that let us know who we are talking to. (And with erspect to the
> secure sites who we are ourselves).
> //Bernie
> http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
You mean to say that my internet shopping order for goods does not bear an
encrypted credit card number? Anyone listening could find out my credit
card number, but would experience great difficulty trying to falsely identify
himself as me?
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:35:51 -0800
From: Clarence Verge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (OT) memory management... was, Load EPPPD on COMPAQ 590
L.D. Best wrote:
>
> Following up on what I said before, I tried changing UMB stuff back and
> forth and no change in available memory for loading stuff high. But
> since I only have half a million other things to do which I don't want
> to do, I experimented some more with QEMM. Starting the parameters line
> with NOEMS resulted in some *wild* changes!
>
> First, I was told I couldn't use Stealth:M because there was no page
> frame. I was afraid I'd lose even more memory as a result. But I was
> wrong. Suddenly, instead of 44K largest available block in upper for
> loading high, I had a largest available block of 108K. No problem
> finding space to load epppd.exe high now.
>
> BUT ... [hanging my head in shame] I can't find any of the messages
> about how that's done.
Hi L.D.;
I seem to recall suggesting that you COULD do better than rely on QEMM's
Optimize. Sure, if you remove the EMS page frame you can't use QEMM's
Stealth Rom or Stealth D*space but who cares as long as you come out ahead. <G>
Anyway, to load EPPPD high, I think you just put Loadhi in front of it in
Arachne.cfg. i.e. Connection @Loadhi EPPPD.exe >>PPP.log
That's Qemms' Loadhi not the "other" LH - although you could try it too.
I think. I don't load it high myself because my upper memory is full.
- - Clarence Verge
- --
- - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
- --
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 03:43:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> If you folks could refer me to some other web sites that would explain the
> elementary principles involved, I would really appreciate it. What I am
> looking for is not "how to do it" information. I am looking for some
> "how it works" information.
I suppose you are thinking of the algorithms now. If so, begin with
looking for info on RSA - there are VERY many places to get info about it
- - it it widely known. Besides, it's used in very many places, like,
SSL. Here is one site: <http://world.std.com/~franl/crypto/rsa-guts.html>
There is the mathematical description of how RSA works.
/petri
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 03:46:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Bernie wrote:
> AFAIK PGP works in the same way. (But with larger keys which makes it even
> more safe).
Newer PGP implementations use DH (Diffie-Hellman) encfryption instead
(oops, I got off-topic again - this doesn't apply to SSL)
/petri
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:42:52 -0400
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: arachne-digest V1 #931
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:18:32 +0000, "Edenyard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2000 06:02:06 +0100, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
<snip>
> What you really would need to do is to monitor the signal on
> "power good" and see what it was up to when things got chilly!
> Since it's easily accessible and measurable, maybe that's a good
> place to start? It's just possible that the signal may only be
> INTERMITTENTLY wrong when cold (noise/ripple on line) so that an
> oscilloscope would be more likely to spot the problem than the meter
> would.
> Hope I haven't fogged the issue more!!
Oh, no, not at all. Would it not be less expensive for me just to
replace the old 386sx motherboard and power supply instead of buying an
oscilloscope?
Sam
> Ron.
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:01:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
> This Arachnid needs to understand the relationship between your "public" key
> and your "private" key before the above will sound secure.
This is explained by reading the RSA algorithm -
<http://world.std.com/~franl/crypto/rsa-guts.html>
> Are you saying that you can generate a public key from your private key and
> any information encrypted with that public key is secure because it can only
> be decrypted by YOUR private key ?
Yes. (or actually, you generate both keys at the same time.)
> If someone has your public key AND the original material they intend to
> encrypt AND the encrypted result plus an understanding of the encryption
> process, do they not then have enough information to generate a copy of
> your private key ?
No. That would mean using RSA "backwards" - can't be done. The thing is,
you MUST NOT be able generate a secret key from the plaintext (in data to
the algorithm, unencrypted), the key, and the encrypted result in a
public-key system like RSA.
You shouldn't even be able to generate the plaintext if you have the
ciphertext (encrypted in data) and the public key.
> Or, is that private key used ONLY ONCE ?
Both keys are used as long as they aren't changed, ie. somewhere between
once and forever =)
/petri
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:08:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, L.D. Best wrote:
> Second, all Arachne users have seen the code produced and sent when we
> feed data to a page & submit it ... it usually overflows the URL line.
> <G> Well, I play a little game of hangman on-line once in awhile, and I
> wondered how in the heck the system knew which person trying to figure
> out which word was sending in a new letter guess. Then I looked
This is just a plain ID code - nothing to do with secure web sites.
> carefully at that URL line and discovered that, along with my current
> guess, the word itself sat up there in encoded form. It's only a simple
> substitution code, but I haven't bothered to break it because then ALL
> the fun of the game would be gone.
You are talking about a standard insecure connection - you can
(usually) derive your word from that encoded form, and if you can't,
well, you sent it in the open anyway, before the server encoded it =)
This is not so with SSL - it is sent in an encrypted form which only the
server can read. Not that Hangman games absolutely MUST be unreadable for
others for years and years...=)
> Bottom Line: The purchaser doesn't encrypt anything. The data supplied
> is encrypted by the website, or an appropriate link, prior to
> transmittal to the store accessible network.
Wrong - at least when you use SSL.
/petri
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:02:24 -0500
From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (OT) memory management... was, Load EPPPD on COMPAQ 590
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 01:39:39 +0000, Michael L. Dawley wrote:
> On 9 Jan 00, at 17:29, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>> (Test #5)
>> ---Qemm config.sys---
>> rem OPENDOS 7.01
> Where do we get it, and how is it installed?
> Thanks,
> Michael L. Dawley
> Pearl, Mississippi
> Compudyne 486DX4-100
AFAIK, The version I use (7.5), is no longer available from Quarterdeck.
In fact, Quarterdeck themselves no longer exist.
(the company was sold to Symantec)
And the "new" Qemm97 that they are selling is a bloated-piece-of-junk
which I would not recommend to an enemy.<g>
(even if it were FREE)
If you can find a copy of Qemm v7.5......
By all means, get it.
- --
Glenn McCorkle mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Jackson, Ohio, USA
Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS
Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed.
http://home.arachne.cz/ or http://arachne.browser.org/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:14:02 -0500
From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Log Files [was Re: no packet driver found
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:23:52 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> Just a bit more of a note on this ...
> The log files were developed for troubleshooting and beta testing.
> They're there to catch mistakes or CYA. That is why, if you use PoP.LOG
> in your setup, it is overwritten each time you download mail. And that
> is why, if nothing goes wrong with PPP connection, PPP.LOG is cleaned
> off your disk when you successfully exit Arachne.
> I believe the History. lst as currently configured was also set up more
> for debugging and beta testing than for end-user utility. I'm hoping
> that 1.60 will have a history list that actually shows you the last
> place you visited, the place that made you crash in the first place. <G>
In a manner of speaking, it does this now.
When we press the backspace key.
The most recent page visited is in bold-face.
- --
Glenn McCorkle mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Jackson, Ohio, USA
Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS
Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed.
http://home.arachne.cz/ or http://arachne.browser.org/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:13:11 +0200
From: Sergei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne on TV and arcademachine (please read)
"Gregory J. Feig" wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 23:26:37 +0000, Joerg Bartels wrote:
>
> -------------snip---------
>
> > In combination with a SCART-plug it blows away every videocard with
> > TV-out when you use it together with M.A.M.E (Multi.Arcade.Machine.Emulator)
>
> Joerg .......what is a SCART-plug, and where do I get one/get plans
> to fabricate one.....
>
> gregy
You must have SCART plug at TV set. It look like
- ---------------------------
\ * * * * * * * * * * * * /
\ * * * * * * * * * * * /
\_____________________/
Always at the back side of TV set.
But maybe its only european standart ?
If you have some electronic backgrounds, it's easy
to connect signals right to PAL decoder, if you have not
such connector.
Sergei
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:56:14 +0200
From: Sergei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Long filenames howto ?
"Gregory J. Feig" wrote:
> > But i want to write Arachne to CD with long filenames as
> > autostarting application.
> > How to fix it ?
> > Maybe Arachne should understood long filenames when launched
> > under Windows 95, same as FAR do ?
> > Michael ? In future v. 1.70 ?
>
> Sergei .........it looks like you are running Arachne under Win95...
> if that is true, Sergei, you stick around - don't go anywhere...
> you may be a valuable resource person for the GERALD MNonitor
> problem.....since I think he was/wants running under Win95...
> gregy
Yes, i am trying sometime to run Arachne
under Windows 98 at Celeron 710Mhz.
I need Windows for few very big PCB designing package.
Accel EDA, OrCAD and At&T ORCA if you need to know
(in past i was eletronic engeneer, and i still love to
assemble something by myself). Also Netscape 4.7 much more
faster then Arachne at this hardware, so i can reduce phone
and on-line bills.
> ..If you are running under Win95, you might send me some details
> - of this list, for now - at my email above....I can edit and
> post back to this list later....
What kind of details ?
And what is GERALD MNonitor problem ?
Sergei
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:12:27 +0200
From: Sergei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GEOS (Was: NewDeal)
Sam Ewalt wrote:
> Yes, NewDeal Office is an updated version of Geoworks 3.xx. It is ten
> years old for the most part with some revisions and updating. The
> internet stuff is recent.
>
> It is a better GUI than MS-Windows. More stable, much smaller, advanced
> features like long filenames and so on, running on a 286.
>
> Maybe I'll try the browser.
>
GEOS was created for Commodore 64/128 by Berkeley
software (renamed to Geoworks, investors - HP, Novell,
ericsson, Toshiba, Novell, Amazon and AOL (!) )
GEOS is not so old and outdated, few companies use GEOS at
Handheld PC's. Few of them :
PDA from Zeus, mini-notebook GeoBook from Brother,
Palmtops OmniGo from Hewlett-Packard, famous Nokia 9000,
and, the best from all, cellular phone-PDA-videophone-
cartografic system-more and more Locatio from Seiko Epson.
By the way, NewDeal exellently work under Linux,
overperforming all GUIs such as KDE, CDE, GNOME and
ecpecially WordPerfect and StarOffice.
Sergei
- --
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:33:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> There is only one "public key" that I know about. It looks like this and
> everyone either has a copy or can readily generate a copy by recalling the
> scheme by which the characters are ordered:
>
> ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
[SNIP]
> ZABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY
This sounds very unlike RSA - RSA does not use character, but rather huge
nimbers derived from primes blaha blah. This key you showed me looks more
like Vigenere which is something entirely different.
> With the system I am thinking of, only we and our fellow members of the secret
> net have access to OUR secret key. Everyone has the same public key, but only
> we members of the secret net have the private key.
Yes, this is what public-key systems are about. Everyone can encrypt data
with the public one and only you guys with the secret one can read it.
> With the type of crypto system that I am thinking of, the public key, as
> shown above, is the same for everyone - everyone including eavesdroppers and
> spies know how to generate the pubic key. Therefore the public key need not
> be exchanged because it is already known, and there is nothing secret about it.
> In my way of thinking, any key needed for crypto purposes and required to be
> passed somehow among members of the secret communications net is a "private
> key". It seems a contradiction in terms to refer to a "public key" as one that
> must be exchanged among the members of the secret net.
The people with the secret key should also have a copy of the public one,
just because I say so. =)
> In the system I am referring to, a code page, conventionally consisting of
> randomly generated five-letter groups is used by the secret net for
> encryption and decyption. The messages generated from the code sheet and
Uh....well....what happens if someone who shouldn't be able to decrypt
stuff, needs to encrypt something? (like, in the case of RSA in SSL)
See it this way:
Encrypts with public key
SERVER <-X------------------------------ CLIENT <- CC number sent
| | to shopiing site
| |- an eavesdropper recieves the
| encrypted data. He has al-
| ready got the public key.
| Still, he can't find out your
| credit card number. [this is the strength of SSL]
|
| Decrypts with secret key
----------------------------> CC number used ----|
|
Securely transmitted to BANK |
Draws money from card <--------------------------|
> I agree that the method of encrytion described above would not be secure
> if there did not exist a secure method of exchanging passwords among the
> members of the secret net.
You usually don't send the secret key in public-key systems.
> I still do not understand how data can be exchanged securely without first
> having exchanged passwords or pass phrases in a secure manner.
See the mathematics for RSA -
<http://world.std.com/~franl/crypto/rsa-guts.html>. Note that nothing is
100% secure when it comes to encryption (except for a technique called OTP
pads), but RSA is very very very very very very secure. The other cryptos
(except DES) in SSL are also secure - if good keylengths are used. This
makes SSL very secure.
> A secret key system remains highly secure as long as the code page is not
> compromised. People who use the secret key systems usually will afford
> themselves even higher levels of security by using a different code page
> for a different day or hour.
This is ture. But with SSL you don't want to exchange secret keys - you
have no secure way of doing so. So you say, "Hello RSA" and everythings
works securely =)
> I think we have different concepts as to
> what a "public key" is. We are talking about two different things. Hence
> my difficulty in comprehending the concepts you are presenting.
Yeah, I noticed it now =/
Public key: EVERYONE can get it. It's no secret. Used in SSL when you SEND
data. Can ONLY be decrypted with SECRET key.
Secret key: only the SSL server has it, to decrypt what it recieves. Noone
else.
Any clearer?
/petri
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:57:30 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: monitor Gerald
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:27:53 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
- ---------snip---------
> The best way to "print to file" is to invoke the program PRN2FILE.COM,
> 1,386 bytes, 10-08-91, copyright 1987 Ziff Communications, probably
> available as a free download from the PC Magazine site or from Simtel.
> You don't need a "full-fledged word processor". Any good DOS text editor
> will work. You will need to have a good keyboard instead of the kind that
> is designed for Windows 95. Those idiots that designed it forgot to
> include a "print-screen" key.
Sam ......you stole my line...PRN2FILE is my usual comeback on this
list.....BUT...it is so small, I would be willing to send it as an
attachment to anyone who wants it.
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:54:12 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne on TV and arcademachine [SCART]
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:10:05 +0100 (MET), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hoody wrote:
>> SCART is like:
>> +---------------------+
>> | : : : : : : : : : : |
>> | |
>> / : : : : : : : : : : |
>> ------------------------+
>> .. which holds RGB in/out, as well as normal video in/out, and
>> stereo audio in/out. Its 21 pins (20 pins plus the shielding).
> I couldn't actually find any of my SCART cables but that's basically it,
> not so much as a square perhaps and not as rectangual but more or less.
>> Didn't we have these discussions not long ago?
> Yes (upon I learned that the shielding was a pin), Or aren't you paying
> attention? <G>
> Perhaps this needs to go into a FAQ ;)
Bernie .......maybe, under some thread....it's just that someone
mentioned this in a thread, and I had never heard of it and it
sounded like something we had/have over here, but sounded like
more info, and it was/is maybe pertinent to a problem I'm workingt
on for Gerald......
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:48:44 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oldies but goodies [was Re: HIMEM.SYS, are there differentversions?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:01:14 +0100 (MET), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregy wrote:
>> Clarence.......I have the complete "Programmers Tool Kit" package for
>> Zenith DOS, which I believe is MSDOS 3.31.....and it includes ALL
>> the BIOS and DOS source files.......are you interested in something
>> like this......?????
> I would really like to see those DOS sources (and BTW does anyone have the
> sources for Open-DOS? I lost mine). Gregy could you send them to me?
Bernie ..........I'll dig them out, and send as email attachments...
Clarence wants them too.....AFAIR...they are about 4-5 360k floppies
and should not make too big an attachment.......
If anyone else wants them.....Hey..there's no postage needed, so just
ask......
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:26:06 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Long filenames howto ?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:12:19 +0100 (CET), Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Rebel wrote:
>> Do you mean that FAT16 doesnt allow longfilenames?
>> It's not true: even under FAT12 ( 3,5" floppy) you can have longfilenames.
> No, you can't - it's not FAT that stores the long file name. (or, well it
> is, sort of, but not as a file name.) It's the LFN system (which is NOT
> part of any FAT specification) that stores the LFN.
> But then again, you may put LFNs on whatever FAT type you wish, but FAT
> still doesn't support it - only LFN compatible programs/drivers.
petri.....which means that we don't have to worry about buggering
about with the file system (a lot of work) but just about coping with
and responding to (insome way) ADDITIONAL information tacked on to
whatever filesystem/filename we encounter in Arachne....???
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
End of arachne-digest V1 #938
*****************************
