There are 24 messages totalling 802 lines in this issue. Topics in this special issue: 1. Video Seven EGA/VGA-card, how to switch it? 2. "Ring-ring! Ring-Ring!" "That's the phone Reg! 3. spoofing email addresses. (2) 4. Netware blues. 5. "Ring-ring! (2) 6. "Ring-ring! Ring-Ring!" "That's the phone Reg!" "Get it Ethel!" 7. DOS screen-saver 8. spoofing email addresses. (fwd) (3) 9. IBM DisplayWrite 3 ver. 1.10 manual 10. free insuramce for buyers on ePay 11. DR-DOS 7.02..."I like it" (4) 12. ARACHNE WEB BROWSER setup problems 13. PKZip 2.50 for DOS (4) 14. this list To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
Hello all, I have a VideoSeven graphics card, it may be an original part of a Compaq Deskpro 286 (12 MHz), that is the computer in which it is installed anyway. It seems to work for EGA as well as for VGA, there are two contacts, of which one is 9-pin. I try to use it with an EGA-monitor, it works well mostly, but sometimes the picture falls apart into lines. I suppose I should set the switches (there are six of them) in a different way for EGA, but how? Does anyone know anything about this card? I have of course been at ***drivers**.com and checked Altavista etc, but with no result so far. Per B. ************************************************************ The PHOTO&NATURIST page; In English, auf deutsch, po polsku; http://www.crosswinds.net/poznan/~backman http://www.algonet.se/~pbackman ************************************************************
On 17 Jan 99 at 12:47, Stephen Lloyd wrote: > actually, what that number is meant to do is to cause the telephone > company's center to ring you back. When you pick up the phone, you are > presented with a number of wierd tones. This 199 number is only for > australia. Apparently I think the techs use it to test the line. > I think there is something like this in Israel, but I lost the number. I also dont know if that was really what it did as I never actually tried it. There is something, however: when you dial 110, the local phone computer tell you the number of the line you called from. Since this is a service ment for the technitions only, the recorded voice who say the number is usually something that someone made in a hurry, and therefor sounds funny and strange. This fact and the fact that its a free service, caused people to try it for months. Now, -thats- bordom if you ask me. Or Botton [EMAIL PROTECTED] - "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense." ----------------------------- http://members.xoom.com/dsdp/
Unfortunately, I don't get original copies of listserv messages, or I'd send this to the originator of the problem, however, something needs to be said, and this is probably the best place to say it to reach the offender. Someone (presumably a survpc member) has been faking a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address, and sending commands to the listserv address trying to do various things to the listserver and to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. I would like to point out 2 things as to why this fails, so that perhaps you'll go bother someone else and stop filling my mailbox with garbage. First, root cannot (by design) subscribe to any lists I run on this listserv, so stop trying to subscribe root and give commands from root. Secondly, all listserv commands that make changes to the list require authorization via a magic cookie which you will not receive if you're spoofing addresses, since those cookies get sent to the address you're spoofing. So, I'd appriciate it if you would kindly go bother someone else. Thansk you.
Ok, no, not cookies! My legacy PC doesn't do cookies. ...and I was planning on getting an account thru you. Can one open up a regular acvccoount without the use of cookies? BTW, I heard recently that you have received a summons from LEA to hand over all your user logs to them. Is that true? I also heard that you hired some super-duper lawyers to combat the case on tha basis that it's unconstitutional. I was wondering how that was going, please, do say. Thank you, ~pete On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Travis Siegel wrote: > Unfortunately, I don't get original copies of listserv messages, or I'd > send this to the originator of the problem, however, something needs to be > said, and this is probably the best place to say it to reach the offender. > Someone (presumably a survpc member) has been faking a [EMAIL PROTECTED] > address, and sending commands to the listserv address trying to do various > things to the listserver and to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. I would > like to point out 2 things as to why this fails, so that perhaps you'll go > bother someone else and stop filling my mailbox with garbage. First, root > cannot (by design) subscribe to any lists I run on this listserv, so stop > trying to subscribe root and give commands from root. Secondly, all > listserv commands that make changes to the list require authorization via > a magic cookie which you will not receive if you're spoofing addresses, > since those cookies get sent to the address you're spoofing. So, I'd > appriciate it if you would kindly go bother someone else. Thansk you.
Hi all, I was just curious about what the list thinks about netware 3.1 for dos. We currently have it installed and it pretty much works, but darn it's hard for my little humanities-major brain to get wrapped around. We have 36 machines, and sometimes even seemingly simple tasks, like sticking an application on a menu, don't seem to work for weird and inexplicable reasons. Like, we'll put the same application (in this case Minuet) on two different menus with the same execution line, etc. Both accounts supposedly have the same access, and the dang thing will work on two of the menus available to users, but not on a third. Can someone recommend a book/edition for total netware losers such as myself? Or, are there simpler networking options for dos that don't require mountains of config scripts to install? Right now I am so frustrated that I am going to just send them to a dos menu that executes batch scripts. It won't be elegant, but at least I know it'll work. Also, my apologies if I am over-questioning everyone. I'll try to contribute more to *answering* some, as I realize I am being a parasite. MC
For what it's worth, the "Central Office RingBack" numbers which I've used here in the US were 1191 and 7891. Of course, this _WAS_ with rotary (dial) phones, in the 1960s. I just now tried them both, and 7891 does nothing. 1191 gives a "fast busy", as does its touch-tone (DTMF) equivalent, *91. Hmmm. . . . Dave
On Saturday, Brent Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: ] Ok, so what was the dare? What did you think should be result if someone in ] the U.S. would dial, 01161199? I did it twice. Each time, there was about ] 15-20 seconds of silence, and the rising three-tone sequence indicating an ] error, followed by, "We're sorry, your call did not go through." Now, let's ] hear what you thought the result should have been. Rung you back maybe. I saw in a file somewhere the number that rings you back is "+61 199" so I was trying to see if it really worked from overseas. ] Apparently, whatever that number once did, it is not a ] valid number to reach anything now. NO-ONE OUTSIDE AUSTRALIA RING THAT NUMBER NOW!!! It does still work here though. -- [-- From the 486SX laptop of Ben J Hood -- Visit my new pages! --] [- http://hoody.virtualave.net/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -] [-- Home of PostHaste, Arachne Webring, & others too numerous! --] 4 out of 5 people think the 5th person is an idiot. * PostHaste and Arachne
On Saturday, Boanne Lorraine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: ] 2. Does anyone know of a non tsr screen saver that will ] scroll a short text message accross the screen for DOS. (Like ] the marque screen saver from Win95.) There would be millions of these. In QBASIC: defint a-z randomize timer screen 0,,1,1 view print cls t$="This is a computer running a crappy BASIC interpretor" t$=space$[80]+t$+space$[81] do row=int[rnd*25]+1 for i=1 to len[t$]-80 locate row,1 print mid$[t$,i,80]; for slow=1 to 100 'you'll have to change this, 'depending on your CPU speed... if inkey$<>"" then exit do next next loop screen 0,,0,0 system Save this as ss.bas and make a ss.bat: @qbasic /run [c:\whatever]\ss.bas And Bob's your uncle. But I know you don't have QBASIC, Boanne. :( -- [-- From the 486SX laptop of Ben J Hood -- Visit my new pages! --] [- http://hoody.virtualave.net/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -] [-- Home of PostHaste, Arachne Webring, & others too numerous! --] 2+2=5... It HAS to, the computer says so. * PostHaste and Arachne
The way it works in this part of Wisconsin, is dial your own number, get the busy signal and hang up and the CO rings your line. Mike >Sender: SurvPC Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-UIDL: ef880e251686e2af27df930627f2649e >For what it's worth, the "Central Office RingBack" numbers which >I've used here in the US were 1191 and 7891. >Of course, this _WAS_ with rotary (dial) phones, in the 1960s. >I just now tried them both, and 7891 does nothing. 1191 gives a >"fast busy", as does its touch-tone (DTMF) equivalent, *91. Hmmm. . >. . >Dave Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Registered
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:45:48 -0500 From: J.D. Abolins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Peter Torrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [SURVPC] spoofing email addresses. FWIW, a listserv that takes commands from email can't use cookies. But if a Web browser is used to access the listserv's administrative functions, then a cookie may be required as a means of verification. This is not a bad use of cookies; here the cookie is compensating for the stateless nature of http transactions. (That is, generally, each http request is unlinked from the previous request so it is hard for the server to tell which person is doing a series of requests.) It is good to check about the history of summons for a comminications service. Interpretation of the info can get a little more complex. The mere gettining summoned is often more indicative of the uses of the resources by others than by the operator. Sometimes, it can be how the operator presents the resource that can draw LEA attention. (Advertise, especially in some places, that you are offering an "untraceable" resource where users can do "anything" and that will draw LEA attention.) But more often, it is a user or a few who draw the attention. Sometimes, it is a tragedy of the commons where a few jerks may ruin great resource. The big question is how does the operator respond to the queries and summons. Very few operators will go down in flames fighting a supeona. Very few will toss in a thermite charge into the computer room and made a fight as the LEOs are coming in. <grin> But some operators will diviluge too much info too early. AOL did that in the case where US Navy investigators merely contacted AOL to ask the identity of an AOL user who profile indicated he might be a sailor who's gay. No summons, no supeona and AOL gave the info. Bad! The operator should wait at least for a court document or something quite official before giving out info. (The one exception might be --and this has been debated elsewhere-- is in a life or death emergency.) What if there is a summons, a supeona or a search warrant? Depends upon the time factors and the nature of the request. A search warrant leaves no legal room to do anything except to keep an eye on the proceedures to make sure they don't go beyond the warrant. Other types of demands, especially civil case discovery ones, for the info might be challengeable by go to the courts and negotiating down the request. For example, if the LEA claims it is one user they are after, get the scope of the search down to the one user, not the whole list. This still is not going to go over well with many users. When the fellow who ran the anon.penet.fi anon remailer had to do this when the Finnish people were coming for info on one user but threatened to take the who system's list. Lot of Internet people were calling him a wuss. But what could he do? (Some, I think, expected him to lock in for tight resistance, going to jail, fighting the officers, destroying the system, whatever.) There is some precedent in US law for not handing over the whole list of users. One of the key cases dates back to the 1950s when some Southern sherrifs wanted the NAACP to hand over its membership lists for the sake of "public order". The demand was chalelnged and went up to the US Supreme Court. The decision was that the NAACP did NOT have to disclose its membership because it would have a chilling effect upon the freedom of speech and the right of peaceable assembly. The disclosure would have made the people on the list subject to various retalitroy and discriminator measures. This protected the lists for membership organizations for the most part. A case regarding an anti-smoking BBS being supeonaed by the tobacco industry drew upon the NAACP case with the argument that BBS user lists can be same as organization membership lists. The courts decided in favor of the BBS. How well will the protections hold up in the future is iffy. I believe that several societal fears may well start ripping holes in these decisions. Also, there is the growing community vs. individual liberties turbulance. Unfortunately many operators don't have the legal resources or the inclination to go into challenging the info demands and many of the civil liberties groups don't neccessarily pick up on these cases unless it catches their interest. J.D. Abolins At 06:52 PM 1/17/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Ok, no, not cookies! My legacy PC doesn't do cookies. ...and I was >planning on getting an account thru you. > >Can one open up a regular account without the use of cookies? > >BTW, I heard recently that you have received a summons from LEA to hand >over all your user logs to them. > >Is that true? > >I also heard that you hired some super-duper lawyers to combat the case on >tha basis that it's unconstitutional. > >I was wondering how that was going, please, do say. > >Thank you, >~pete > >On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Travis Siegel wrote: >> Unfortunately, I don't get original copies of listserv messages, or I'd >> send this to the originator of the problem, however, something needs to be >> said, and this is probably the best place to say it to reach the offender. >> Someone (presumably a survpc member) has been faking a [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> address, and sending commands to the listserv address trying to do various >> things to the listserver and to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. I would >> like to point out 2 things as to why this fails, so that perhaps you'll go >> bother someone else and stop filling my mailbox with garbage. First, root >> cannot (by design) subscribe to any lists I run on this listserv, so stop >> trying to subscribe root and give commands from root. Secondly, all >> listserv commands that make changes to the list require authorization via >> a magic cookie which you will not receive if you're spoofing addresses, >> since those cookies get sent to the address you're spoofing. So, I'd >> appriciate it if you would kindly go bother someone else. Thansk you. >
I think I missed something here. Would someone kindly fill me in as to what all this lea stuff is? (I've never ehard of them) Second, I'd like to point out that just because listserv calls it's authorization requests magic cookies doesn't mean they are the least bit web related. All they are is a random string of digits sent to the originator of a listserv command that needs to be returned in order for the command to take place. Since the string of characters (not always just numbers) is random, it isn't very likely someone can guess the magic number/cookie, and make the command go through, thus the security of the commands is prevented from spoofing attacks as I mentioned in the original message on this topic. This wasn't meant to cause a whole chain of responses, it was simply an appeal to whoever was sending the things to stop, since their attempts were failing miserably and I was getting tired of seeing the error messages.
Hello, Does anybody need a user's guide volume 2 for IBM Display Write 3 ver 1.10? I picked it up at GoodWill, but when I got it home I realized that it was only 1 out of 3 volumes and didn't have the software :-( Before I do anything with it I wanted to offer it to people on the list. It is in "stored for a long time" condition on the outside, but absolutely PERFECT on the inside----I opened the shrink wrap and put the pages in the 3-ring binder myself.......it's one of those 3-ring binder in a box deals. I'll let it go for $2 plus shipping if anyone is interested. I'm in Michigan, btw Chad A. Fernandez Net-Tamer V 1.11.2X - Test Drive
I mean Ebay. Anyway, buyers and sellers alike should like to read this online article about battling fraud and free insurance. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2187917,00.html
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Travis Siegel wrote: > I think I missed something here. Would someone kindly fill me in as to > what all this lea stuff is? (I've never ehard of them) Second, I'd like > to point out that just because listserv calls it's authorization requests > magic cookies doesn't mean they are the least bit web related. All they > are is a random string of digits sent to the originator of a listserv > command that needs to be returned in order for the command to take place. I apologise. Basically, I missunderstood what you had said. I mistook your flavour of cookies to be web cookies meant even for the casual user of SoftCon. Also, again, I apologize profusely as I mistook you for Dragon*Con, which indeed is under investigation by LEA for the activitiews of one of it's users. Take care and sorry to have wated your time, ~pete
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:04:21 +1000, Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: > Anyone know if SECURITY.BIN in DR-DOS can be gotten around apart from > a boot disk? Because i figure my laptop is pretty secure if it has an > EXTERNAL floppy drive ;-), orrrr you could change the boot > sequence...that would make a laptop quite impenatrable...would > require removing the hard disk and slaving it somehow. > According to the built-in help, Dosbook, there is *no* way to get around Security, not even with a "boot disk" (I guess you mean booting from a floppy?): Using the Master Key Password to Protect the Hard Disk The master key password prevents unauthorized users from gaining access to your computer unless they know this password. When you reboot your computer, the operating system detects that security is enabled and prompts for the master key password. You must enter the password in order to obtain access to the operating system. You set the master key password when you enabled security in SETUP. You can also use SETUP to change this password. Security also protects the hard disk from unauthorized access by denying access to the hard disk, when an attempt is made to boot an operating system from diskette. If you have more than one operating system loaded on your hard disk, you must supply the master key password to load any other operating systems as well as Caldera DR-DOS(tm). Lars-Einar Jansson Stockholm, Sweden
On 18 Jan 99 at 23:59, Lars-Einar Jansson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:04:21 +1000, Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: > > > Anyone know if SECURITY.BIN in DR-DOS can be gotten around apart from > > a boot disk? Because i figure my laptop is pretty secure if it has an > > EXTERNAL floppy drive ;-), orrrr you could change the boot > > sequence...that would make a laptop quite impenatrable...would > > require removing the hard disk and slaving it somehow. > > > > According to the built-in help, Dosbook, there is *no* way to get > around Security, not even with a "boot disk" (I guess you mean > booting from a floppy?): > Security also protects the hard disk from unauthorized access by > denying access to the hard disk, when an attempt is made to boot > an operating system from diskette. > > If you have more than one operating system loaded on your hard > disk, you must supply the master key password to load any other > operating systems as well as Caldera DR-DOS(tm). Cool. Now only if it could ENCRYPT the hard disk ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pop, sweltering away in summer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ISP) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (forwarded, preffered) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (backup) WWW: http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/nova/229/index.htm
