Re: Thanksgiving Day

[Ian S. King]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:

> On 11/24/2016 01:51 PM, Murray McCullough wrote:
> > I wanted to wish all American readers of this list a very happy
> > Thanksgiving Day from a reader in Canada. Reading 'Classic
> > Computing' still plays an important part in my appreciation of the
> > role of computers from earlier years in why I still enjoy working
> > with computers. Happy computing. Murray  :)
> >
> Murry, I'm sorry that we forgot to pre-empt your wishes on October 9.  I
> did wish some of my Canadian friends happy returns for the day then,
> however.
>
> I'm a bit giddy right now--the pies are done, the other dishes are
> cooked and tastes and the bird's in the oven.  Short of the dog getting
> into the feast, I think I'm home free. (You can tell who does the
> cooking in our house).
>
> I imagine that some have already hit the stores and others are settling
> down for an evening of football...
>
> --Chuck
>

I had an unexpectedly delightful experience: I was at my local pub and the
power went out.  It resulted in a wonderful sense of community in
''adversity" (we had emergency lighting and the bar maid brought out
numerous candles) and made this one of the best Thanksgiving experiences
I've ever had.  And all my computer work (document editing) was local.  All
good!  -- Ian

-- 
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School 
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens

Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal 
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab 

University of Washington

There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

[jim stephens]

From chocolate...

"Gmail is only the single most reliable mail provider in the world, and 
bounces never happen."


On 11/23/2016 5:02 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:

>Do we have any evidence that his messages are affecting the rest of us,
>though?
The thread about email to AOL is not on topic to the original post. The 
original topic is ezwind / classiccmp emails going to gmail.com and 
whether it was not failing, therefore it must be the mailing list 
processors fault.


I subscribe at both my own domain, as well as an archival copy on my 
gmail account, which I seldom reference.  I did also have a bounce 
disable today when I went and looked.  It did not unsubscribe me, but 
had the link to do the re-enable.


I went to the user page, and found no link to get a bounce profile / 
count for my id or anything as someone mentioned to attempt to help.  
Where is that?  I'd check that if i could see what the failures are and 
adjust if I could.


I've not been unsubscribed, but disabled, and though annoying, and 
considering that the list is a labor of love, I'm not complaining, just 
helping.  Please keep that in mind, or it may go away. Infinite patience 
on the part of providers of truly free services may not exist.  Glad to 
have what we have when we have it to chat here.


I do see a number of gmail disables here, perhaps the logs aren't so 
huge that that the bounces for the gmail bounces might be something to 
diagnose the problem if we just let someone get back from holiday and 
look at it.


Mean time, my main email didn't disable, and I have this thread and am 
responding from there.


As to how everyone has their email clients / processors set up, that is 
something that they or their providers are responsible for, not the list.


A friend of mine hosts my domain on a system with the network presence 
for the domain on it, and has had it, and both DNS and the email service 
have failed completely a couple of times in the last 6 months.  Neither 
time caused a bounce or unsubscribe.  The list emails were held probably 
from ezwind when it could finally contact our domains again, and I then 
received several thousand emails (because I get all emails for my 
domains in one bucket, which I filter).


I am not an email expert (which is why I won't volunteer to do much 
here), but the failure mode which occurs when the sender or an 
intermediate relay holds the email apparently holds the emails for some 
period was probably triggered, rather than just an instant bounce.  Also 
he does maintain a second system on a different ISP for this system, but 
the failure took out both systems.


Myy last unsub was on Nov 8 on gmail, now Nov 23

thanks
Jim

Turkey Day Scans: TELEX

[Jason T]

I received another big pile of random documentation this week and
these floated to the top and landed directly on my scanner:

http://chiclassiccomp.org/docs/index.php?dir=%2Fcomputing/WesternUnion

Circa 1968-9 Western Union TELEX brochures, rate charts and a little
bit of ASR32 technical data.  Really interesting stuff for fans of
early data networks, as well as groovy graphic design!

Enjoy...

-j

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

[Richard Loken]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Graham Toal wrote:


Not so.  By doing nothing (ie NOT creating an SPF record for the sending
domain) you pretty much guarantee a lack of problems. (At least, these
specific problems).  It's the smart aleck admins who do create SPF records
etc who cause the problems, in conjunction with recipients that think these
records are worth paying attention to.  The irony is that SPF was invented
by the advertising industry to ensure that their so called 'legitimate'
bulk mail gets through; it does very little to stop actual spam and it
completely messes up mailing lists and people who use traditional SMTP mail
while travelling.  Sorry, I shouldn't start on SPF, it just drives me
crazy.  If you are a DNS admin, *please* don't fall for the SPF bullshit.
(For some reason Microsoft are totally enamored of it and twist their
clients' arms to enable it :-/ )


You are preaching to the choir.  Some of the first implementers of SPFs
were outfits that the rest of us would call spammers.  As for Micro$oft,
my employer trashed our Zimbra and PMDF servers and sent us over to
Office365 so now I spend my time babysitting Exchange in the cloud,
writing PowerShell scripts, and waiting a Micro$oft minute for things
to happen that used to be immediate.

And you are right, Micro$ofts loves SPFs but they do nothing at all to
expedite our mail through their servers.

And in honour of Micro$oft, SPFs, and my 21st century managers, I am
retiring in 29 days.

--
  Richard Loken VE6BSV, Systems Programmer - VMS   : "...underneath those
  Athabasca University : tuques we wear, our
  Athabasca, Alberta Canada: heads are naked!"
  ** rllo...@telus.net ** :- Arthur Black

Re: Thanksgiving Day

[Chuck Guzis]

On 11/24/2016 01:51 PM, Murray McCullough wrote:
> I wanted to wish all American readers of this list a very happy 
> Thanksgiving Day from a reader in Canada. Reading 'Classic
> Computing' still plays an important part in my appreciation of the
> role of computers from earlier years in why I still enjoy working
> with computers. Happy computing. Murray  :)
> 
Murry, I'm sorry that we forgot to pre-empt your wishes on October 9.  I
did wish some of my Canadian friends happy returns for the day then,
however.

I'm a bit giddy right now--the pies are done, the other dishes are
cooked and tastes and the bird's in the oven.  Short of the dog getting
into the feast, I think I'm home free. (You can tell who does the
cooking in our house).

I imagine that some have already hit the stores and others are settling
down for an evening of football...

--Chuck

Thanksgiving Day

[Murray McCullough]

I wanted to wish all American readers of this list a very happy
Thanksgiving Day from a reader in Canada. Reading 'Classic Computing'
still plays an important part in my appreciation of the role of
computers from earlier years in why I still enjoy working with
computers. Happy computing. Murray  :)

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

[John H. Reinhardt]

On 11/24/2016 12:20 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote:



What's a bounce score, and how do you know what yours is and what the
limit is? Does classiccmp specify 5.0, or Yahoo, or what?


When you get the message saying you have been disabled, it contains two links.  One is 
the link to re-enable your subscription, the other is a link to your member page at 
classiccmp.org. There is also your account password.  If you log into that page it tells 
your your current "Bounce Score".

John H. Reinhardt

Re: Membership disabled due to bounces

[Eric Christopherson]

On Nov 23, 2016 11:05 PM, "John H. Reinhardt" 
wrote:
>
>
> 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 finds:
>>>
>>> "Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
>>> cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org designates 199.188.211.196 as permitted
>>> sender) client-ip=199.188.211.196;
>>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@mx.aol.com;
>>>spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
>>> cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org designates 199.188.211.196 as permitted
>>> sender) smtp.mailfrom=cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org;
>>>dmarc=fail (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=aol.com"
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm no expert on dmarc, but that looks to be the source of the pain.
>>
>>
>> Do we have any evidence that his messages are affecting the rest of us,
>> though?
>>
>
> I get disabled regularly. My address is at Yahoo.  Currently I'm sitting
at 2.0 out of 5.0 for my bounce score.

What's a bounce score, and how do you know what yours is and what the limit
is? Does classiccmp specify 5.0, or Yahoo, or what?

>  The previous disabled messages came at:
>
> 11/20/2016
> 11/06/2016
> 10/25/2016
> 10/18/2016
> 10/13/2016
> 10/05/2016
> 09/26/2016
> 09/10/2016
> 08/23/2016
> 08/11/2016
> 08/06/2016
> 08/01/2016
> 07/19/2016
> 07/10/2016
> 07/01/2016
>
> A fairly uneven distribution.  None repeating sooner than 5 days and
sometimes taking up to 18 days before hitting the 5.0 bounce limit.
>
> 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?
>
> John H. Reinhardt

Re: Reverse-engineering WD1000, WD1001 hard disk controllers

[Al Kossow]

On 11/24/16 7:34 AM, dwight wrote:
> I have a loose WD1000 someplace that I was going to use as for spare parts, 
> for the trs80 board I'm using.

take a look at the pictures of the boards on bitsavers to see if they've 
already been dumped

they are bipolar, 24 pin .6 are 82s181 .3 are 82s147

we have only one of the .3 boards dumped (telvideo)

Re: Reverse-engineering WD1000, WD1001 hard disk controllers

[dwight]

I have a loose WD1000 someplace that I was going to use as for spare parts, for 
the trs80 board I'm using. If I can find it, I can dump the ROMs. Do I need to 
make adapters for them?

When I first got the TRS80 one, it had a bad WD chip ( forget which one) 
but I found one a Anchor Elect. I later bought the WD1000 board as insurance.

Dwight



From: cctalk  on behalf of jos 

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:37:14 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: 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