INFO-VAX Wed, 02 Jul 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 366 Contents: Re: Backup to SnapServer Re: Backup to SnapServer Newbie question on ON WARNING Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Secure POP on 5.4 Re: Secure POP on 5.4 Re: Secure POP on 5.4 Re: Secure POP on 5.4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:41:07 -0400 From: "Carmine Castiglia" Subject: Re: Backup to SnapServer Message-ID: <486a8859$0$11620$607ed4bc@cv.net> Any tips on how do do this? There is an awful lot I have learned about OpenVMS, but the new stuff (that is, stuff I haven't had a need to do until now) is still a bit imtimidating. I have enabled NFS service on the SnapServer and (yes, I know it is a whole different animal...) I am able to FTP from the AlphaServer to the SnapServer with a simple $ FTP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx /user="user" /password="password" where xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is the napServer's IP address. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do a simple file copy from the Alpha to the Snap. wrote in message news:3c280c04-80cc-4c00-994f-590ab0a41ef8@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... Assuming that you have a TCPIP stack running on the Alpha, I would try mounting an NFS service from the SnapServer on to the Alpha, and use VMS BACKUP to write a saveset. Sean On Jun 28, 5:05 am, "Carmine Castiglia" wrote: > Can anyone offer some tips on how to (if even possible) backup and restore > drives from an Alphaerver running OpenVMS v7.1-1H2 across an ethernet > connection to a SnapServer 4100 (already on the same network)? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:20:50 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Backup to SnapServer Message-ID: <486a9fbc$0$30338$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Carmine Castiglia wrote: > $ FTP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx /user="user" /password="password" > > where xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is the napServer's IP address. > > But I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do a simple file copy from > the Alpha to the Snap. $copy/ftp myfile.txt ftp.node.tld"user pass::"remote file name" help copy/ftp for more options (/anonymous and /binary in particular) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:11:33 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Newbie question on ON WARNING Message-ID: <486afffd$0$15595$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Generally speaking, in DCL procedures, the ON conditions are not stacked. When one issues a second ON WARNING in a procedure, it replaces any previously set ON WARNING condition. And ON condistion are "consumed" if triggered, you need to re-issue them if necessary. Does this also apply to subroutines ? AKA: does an ON WARNING/ERROR command inside a subroutine overwrite one that was set in the calling code ? When the subroutine exits, does the previous ON WARNING/ERROR get re-instated ? Or must the calling code re-establish any/all ON conditions to ensure the subroutine has not messed with them ? If the subroutine's ON command overwrites the calling code's, does this mean that an error/warning happening after the subroutine returns to the calling code, the calling code would branch to the label inside the subroutine that had been set while the subroutine executed ? Similarly, is it correct to state that the ON conditions are stacked when a command procedure calls andother command procedure with the @ command ? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:23:20 -0700 (PDT) From: ultradwc@gmail.com Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <5027fc00-dd5a-4a99-818c-7b4c4c367fcd@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X. > > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself. > > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are > one and the same. > > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother). > > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable. > > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had > come from his mother, producing an exact replica. > > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting > somewhere: > > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father > etc etc. Infinite loop. > > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain > genetic makeup and create an offspring. > > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth. > > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin > air, or just merely exist. > > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang. > > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a > loop where it creates itself over and over again. > > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created. Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to Him ... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:38:57 -0400 From: "William Webb" Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <8660a3a10807011538y68085bfenfe256ffd8c6579f5@mail.gmail.com> ------=_Part_9825_22474123.1214951937762 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM, wrote: > On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: > > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > > > Person X,male, aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex > > with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X. > > > > Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself. > > > > The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are > > one and the same. > > > > When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an > > absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace > > identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced > > with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother). > > > > There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during > > fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable. > > > > This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's > > genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had > > come from his mother, producing an exact replica. > > > > Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting > > somewhere: > > > > Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on > > the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same > > person. The person would be his own father, and be his father's father > > etc etc. Infinite loop. > > > > At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable > > (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm > > with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain > > genetic makeup and create an offspring. > > > > However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have > > never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time > > (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more > > than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a > > different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his > birth. > > > > So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin > > air, or just merely exist. > > > > Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big > > bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years > > and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big > bang. > > > > If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling > > back in time, it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the > > universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a > > loop where it creates itself over and over again. > > > > And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where > > all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The > > matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created. > > Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to > Him ... > Unless He's really, really, really bored with us-- I think you got that backwards. WWWebb ------=_Part_9825_22474123.1214951937762 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM, <ultradwc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it.
>
> Person X,male,  aged 32, travels back in time 32 years. Person X has sex
> with his own mother, she gets pregnant and gives birth to ... Person X.
>
> Person X becomes his own father. And his son is himself.
>
> The baby would *have* to be an exact clone of his father since they are
> one and the same.
>
> When the egg is fertilised, the mixture of genes would occur in an
> absolutely predicted way where the female genes would exactly replace
> identical genes coming from the father (and those genes being replaced
> with the mother's genes originally came from the father's mother).
>
> There is an interesting portion here that the genetic mixup during
> fertilisation would be fully known in advance and predictable.
>
> This means that when the father has sex with the mother, the mother's
> genes would only replace the portion of the father,s genes which had
> come from his mother, producing an exact replica.
>
> Ok, sorry if this caused a few people up upchuck. But I am getting
> somewhere:
>
> Person X's genealogical tree would be interesting since all ancestors on
> the father's side would be born on the same date and in fact be the same
>  person.  The person would be his own father, and be his father's father
> etc etc. Infinite loop.
>
> At the time of insemination, while the result would be fully predictable
> (so much for eisenburg), the reaction would be physically normal. Sperm
> with certain human genetic makeup would mix with an ova with certain
> genetic makeup and create an offspring.
>
> However, in the big picture, the male portion of the genes would have
> never been created. It would merely exist after a certain point in time
> (the birth date of X). The genetic legacy might continue if X has more
> than 1 baby (perhaps before he travels back in time, he mates with a
> different female). But the genetic code would not exist prior to his birth.
>
> So in essence, a genetic identity would have been created out of thin
> air, or just merely exist.
>
> Perhaps a similar logic would explain the universe. Perhaps the "big
> bang" is just our universe travelling back in time a few billion years
> and when it rematerialises, it happens in a process similar to the big bang.
>
> If baby universe is created by a much older version of itself travelling
> back in time,  it would mean that no "god" would be needed to create the
> universe in the first place since the universe would simply exist in a
> loop where it creates itself over and over again.
>
> And the matter/energy would essentilly be like a perpetual machine where
> all of it is recycled when moved back in time to the big bang. The
> matter/energy would merely exist in time, having never been created.

Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to
Him ...

Unless He's really, really, really bored with us-- I think you got that backwards.

WWWebb

------=_Part_9825_22474123.1214951937762-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:05:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82188@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: > > > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. 88 (JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this wouldn't work.) > > Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to > Him ... That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?) Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob Koehler already did! ------------------------------ Date: 02 Jul 2008 00:13:34 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <486ac82e$0$5016$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82188@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes: >On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: >> > >> > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > >88 > >(JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this >wouldn't work.) > > >> >> Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to >> Him ... > >That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He >might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his >god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have >to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a >definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?) > >Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob >Koehler already did! I think that the string theorists have this debate all tied up. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:52:28 -0500 From: Michael Austin Subject: Secure POP on 5.4 Message-ID: Yes a bit dated - but... TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.4 - ECO 7 How does one actually create the Secure Pop Service - must it be done manually? I have installed: $ pipe install list |sear sys$pipe ssl SSL$LIBCRYPTO_SHR;1 SSL$LIBCRYPTO_SHR32;1 SSL$LIBSSL_SHR;1 Open Hdr Shared Lnkbl SSL$LIBSSL_SHR32;1 as per the instructions, delete and re-created the POP service, stop/restarted the POP service - the docs seem to suggest that it will magically create both POP and SecurePOP. What did I miss in the docs? I would also like to configure SecureIMAP and Sftp, but haven't got that far just yet... I also need to configure a secure php client I use for SMTP forwarding (stupid spammers/ISP's). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:06:40 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Secure POP on 5.4 Message-ID: On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:52:28 -0700, Michael Austin wrote: > I also need to configure a secure php client I use for SMTP forwarding > (stupid spammers/ISP's). Why not just use soyMAIL? -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:14:51 -0500 From: Michael Austin Subject: Re: Secure POP on 5.4 Message-ID: Tom Linden wrote: > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:52:28 -0700, Michael Austin > wrote: > >> I also need to configure a secure php client I use for SMTP forwarding >> (stupid spammers/ISP's). > > Why not just use soyMAIL? > There are other reasons for configuring Secure POP - this was just one. I have requirements for some mobile devices - I have not looked at sM for that purpose. BTW OpenVMS 7.3-2 I had soyMAIL installed at one point, but had a lot of issues with the early versions. So, what command proc or tcpip incantations get this to work? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:29:00 -0500 From: Michael Austin Subject: Re: Secure POP on 5.4 Message-ID: Michael Austin wrote: > Tom Linden wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:52:28 -0700, Michael Austin >> wrote: >> >>> I also need to configure a secure php client I use for SMTP >>> forwarding (stupid spammers/ISP's). >> >> Why not just use soyMAIL? >> > > There are other reasons for configuring Secure POP - this was just one. > I have requirements for some mobile devices - I have not looked at > sM for that purpose. > > BTW OpenVMS 7.3-2 > > I had soyMAIL installed at one point, but had a lot of issues with the > early versions. > > So, what command proc or tcpip incantations get this to work? Hmmmm... it is magic. apparently when I originally created my crt/key files, I encrypted the key. Found this in the docs: Secure POP does not support encrypted private keys. When you generate a private key, you can choose to have the key encrypted in a passphrase that you provide. This requires all users of the private key to have access to the passphrase. The Secure POP server cannot access the passphrase. Once I recreated the crt/key files it started up on port 995. go figure.. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.366 ************************