From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 15 20:35:57 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7G0Zvo14015; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:35:57 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408160035.i7G0Zvo14015@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #381 TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:36:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 381 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Information About Mosquitos Trojan (Monty Solomon) FTC Seeks Comments on Proposed Can-Spam Rules (Monty Solomon) Number Not in Use (Ned Protter) Simple Question For AVAYA CMS R9 (Jack) Old Phone Number Dating (debra@petinfo4u.com) Q and Z on Dials - Standards? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Danny Burstein) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Michael Neary) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Shalom Septimus) Interconnect Fees Get Ugly (Tony P) Re: Up and Down, All Around (Dave Close) Re: NorVergence is Having Popular Leasing Hound; Threaten (Jay Hennigan) Re: Digest Archives Search on Norvergence (Jay Hennigan) Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage (Isaiah Beard) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:57:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Information About Mosquitos Trojan http://www.symbian.com/press-office/2004/pr040810.html Information about Mosquitos Trojan Symbian is aware that an illegally adapted or 'cracked' game called Mosquitos is being distributed by 'warez' websites (illegal software download sites) and on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. This game has been illegally adapted from the legitimate Mosquitos game developed by Ojom. If installed by the user, the illegal game may cause the phone to send text messages to premium rate numbers without the user's approval or knowledge. Symbian offers the following summary information and advice: http://www.symbian.com/press-office/2004/pr040810.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:30:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC Seeks Comments on Proposed Can-Spam Rules http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/08/canspamfrn.htm Comments Will be Accepted Until September 13, 2004 The Federal Trade Commission will publish a Federal Register Notice on Friday, August 13, 2004, seeking public comment on proposed rules regarding commercial electronic mail messages. The CAN-SPAM Act, which took effect January 1, 2004, requires that the Commission issue regulations "defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail message." In this Federal Register Notice, the FTC introduces proposed criteria to facilitate the determination of when an e-mail message has a commercial primary purpose, and seeks comments in response to this proposal. Beginning August 13, comments can be filed electronically by following instructions on a Web-based form available on the following Web site: https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-canspam. Commenters may address as many or as few issues as they wish by writing what they choose in a text box available via the Web-based form, or by using the form to attach a separate document for submission to the record. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register Notice on August 13, 2004, proposes criteria for determining the "primary purpose" of an e-mail message. This is the second step in this rulemaking process, following an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2004. In the earlier notice, the FTC sought comment on the mandatory "primary purpose" rulemaking, and on several other issues, including certain areas of discretionary rulemaking authority established in the Act, several compliance issues that have been raised by industry since passage of CAN-SPAM, and several reports that CAN-SPAM requires the FTC to prepare and submit to Congress. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/08/canspamfrn.htm http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/canspamfrn.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/canspamfrnprivimp.pdf ------------------------------ From: Ned Protter Subject: Number Not in Use Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:31:51 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Today my answering machine received a telemarketing message telling me to press 1 if I was interested. I was interested. I got the number from Call Return. I wrote it down and reread it when they announced it the second time. I dialed it. After two rings I got three shrill tones and an announcement that the number was not in service. I dialed again with the same result. How could I receive a call from an out-of-service number? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You got that recording because the company which called you diddled with their caller ID to keep you from finding out what number they were really at. Its a very common technique telemarketers use. I do not know if your comment 'I was interested' was because you really were interested or if it was tongue in cheek and you actually more interested in making trouble for the telemarketer, but in any event they assumed you would not be interested and took measures to assure you would not get back to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nuclearjack@hotmail.com (Jack) Subject: Simple Question For AVAYA CMS R9 Date: 15 Aug 2004 00:51:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am a supervisor using Avaya to monitor skill status and change agent's skills. I am trying to find a list of skills for all agents whether they are logged into the phone or not. As an example if an agent is accidentally changed to the emergency skill I would rather not have to wait until they log in to find them. Can anyone out there be able to help? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Dating an Old Phone Number Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:31:29 -0700 Hi! I am hoping you can help ... I have an old picture that has a "antique" phone number. I am trying to date the picture. Below is the phone number located in Brooklyn New York: TRiangle 5-7871 Can you date this phone number? I have searched the internet with no = luck. Any help is appreciated, Debra ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Q and Z on Dials - Standards? Date: 14 Aug 2004 19:28:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com We know that the letters on telephone dials and keypads date from the days that exchanges had names, not digits. The Bell System destroyed the last remnant of this in Philadelphia in 1980. Dials would have gone all numeric and been easier to read, but by that time many companies used all letters as easy-to-remember phone numbers (ie DIAL-LAW for a lawyer or 1-800-USA-RAIL for Amtrak, so letters remained. I noticed on the most modern dials the letters Q and Z were added to 7 and 9 respectively. This makes sense. However, on earlier Bell System dials, the Z was over the zero-operator, so it does mark a change. I just curious, with the demise of the Bell System, if there was any organization that sets standards for phones, esp new models, and decided that indeed Q and Z would go over 7 and 9. In a separate post, someone discussed London dials. What do modern dials look like today in the rest of the world. Do they even have letters? If so, are they over the same digits as us? [public replies please] ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:39:24 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Nick Landsberg writes: > On a similar note and to use an analogy. > If one were to (intentionally or unintentionally) leave their front > door unlocked and got burglarized, would that absolve the burglars of > guilt? The burglar probably could not be charged with "breaking and > entering" but he sure as hell could be charged with "criminal > trespass" and theft. I'll take your analogy and raise you one better: You own a drive-in movie theater with two acres of land. You've got a waist high chain link marking your property. The screen is visible for hundreds of feet around. And the radio signal you're using for the audio is similarly detectable. People park outside your fence and watch and listen to the movie. What's the crime? (Note that I'm most specifically NOT excusing the credit card theft, etc. Which, I guess to follow the analogy, would be the folk outsde the fence coming in and stealing your hotdogs ...) _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you were using the old-style audio, where you pulled up in car next to a little loud speaker which you had to open your window slightly and clip the speaker on your window, I suppose you could deprive the outside audience of *hearing* the movie at least with no little speaker box to clip onto the car window. But try this one on for size: We all know there are certain types of radio transmissions we are not supposed to 'tune in' period, such as cell phone conversations. Yet those transmissions, like all radio waves, permeate my property continually; all sorts of radio waves are coming through this room in my house all the time. Do I have the 'right' to examine anything passing through my property, regardless of the intentions of the owners of the property. Suppose someone built a house or owned property right next door to Lowes as an example. Are they required to ignore those WiFi signals which are on their property and not examine them? Or could I rightfully demand that Lowes not 'come onto my property' with their radio signals? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:48:34 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Organization: Excelsior Computer Services >>> Personally, I like the security of wired networks, and wonder why any >>> retail establishment would ever use wireless in the first place -- are >>> they just too lazy/cheap to run networking cable to their cash >>> registers? > If one were to (intentionally or unintentionally) leave their front > door unlocked and got burglarized, would that absolve the burglars of > guilt? The burglar probably could not be charged with "breaking and The difference, as I understand it, is between what's illegal and what's provable. It's every bit as illegal to take someone's possessions from behind an open door as it is from behind a locked door, just like it's every bit as illegal to sneak onto someone's private unencrypted wireless network as it is onto someone's encrypted network. But, in the case, say, of taking a wallet from an unlocked locker in a public space, any defense lawyer would (probably successfully) argue that the thief saw an unsecure wallet and took it for safekeeping, to prevent a real thief from getting it. That argument is a bit harder to make in the case of a wireless network ("I took the bytes and the bandwith for safekeeping"???) but it wouldn't be hard to argue that a cracker saw an open network, a potentially dangerous situation, and for the public good wanted to check things out. Once we're so far off topic, I'll add that it seems to me that the common notion that people shouldn't do something illegal (or immoral) only because they might get caught is increasingly plaguing the U.S., and the case (interesting -- we're back on topic) of breaking into a wireless network is symptomatic of the much larger problem that many US citizens feel the only reason not do something is that they might get punished. In Japan, by contrast, citizens commonly hand over to authorities tiny sums of change that they've found; they wouldn't consider keeping it, apparently, because taking someone else's property is wrong, even without any chance of getting caught. Just some musings ... -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But what about radio transmissions which cross **my property** in the process of going elsewhere? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:58:10 EDT Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case In a message dated Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:31:42 GMT, Nick Landsberg writes: > On a similar note and to use an analogy. > If one were to (intentionally or unintentionally) leave their front > door unlocked and got burglarized, would that absolve the burglars of > guilt? The burglar probably could not be charged with "breaking and > entering" but he sure as hell could be charged with "criminal > trespass" and theft. (And probably "spitting on the sidewalk" just in > case the cops wanted to have a longer list of charges.) It is my recollection that any use of force to enter a place fulfills the requirements to make it a burglary -- turning a knob, pushing the door open, or any other such action. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suppose then even without a door to be broken down to enter, turning on a computer or tuning in a WiFi card could consist of using force? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:25:29 -0500 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Nick wrote: > If one were to (intentionally or unintentionally) leave their front > door unlocked and got burglarized, would that absolve the burglars of > guilt? The burglar probably could not be charged with "breaking and > entering" but he sure as hell could be charged with "criminal > trespass" and theft. (And probably "spitting on the sidewalk" just in > case the cops wanted to have a longer list of charges.) > I believe there is a similarity here. True. But what if you not only left the door unlocked, but carted your property out and placed it on the front lawn? It's still on your property, but it sure is tempting! How about if you start piling your stuff in the street? It's still your stuff; you haven't given it away. So anybody taking any of it (ignore litter cleanup crews :-) is stealing. But would they be prosecuted? This is a better analog to the Lowes case, because the WiFi signal goes out of the store and inhabits the public airwaves. It happens that the access in this case occurred in the parking lot which is Lowes property. However it _could_ have happened elsewhere, because the WiFi signal is not limited to the Lowes property. > The store was probably negligent in not securing its wireless > network (leaving the door unlocked), but it does not condone the > electronic equivalent of the above. They certainly were negligent! Wireless signals are inherently "public", in that they propagate where they will. In order to ensure complete coverage of a store, the RF signal _must_ propagate beyond the store. Therefore it must be assumed that the signal can (and thus will) be received by people not authorized to access the data it carries. So the store is obligated to secure that data before broadcasting it. They should leave a proxy on port 80 that announces this is a closed system. Everything else should be passworded and/or encrypted. The proxy serves as a "No Trespassing" sign and the other safeguards are a fence. Now they can make a case for prosecuting people wandering across their LAN(d). Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin ------------------------------ From: Michael Neary Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:10:43 -0700 Reply-To: mike@neary.com Earlier, an analogy was offered about the Timmins case, and it's simply wrong. He plead guilty to "unauthorized use of a protected computer system". This is a lie, because the computer he accessed was NOT protected!!!! If I leave my door unlocked, and Mr. Timmins walks in, takes NOTHING, makes one local phone call (not toll) on my phone, I would NOT expect him to be prosecuted. It would be wrong in my eyes, but the worst I would expect to happen to him is that I (or a cop) get in his face for a while. If his room mate later uses information to burglarize me, throw the book at the room mate. It's incomprehensible that the criminals in this case were (allegedly) offered reduced sentences on the condition that they testify against Mr. Timmins! -Mike ------------------------------ From: Shalom Septimus Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:07:42 -0400 Reply-To: druggist@pobox.com On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:46:12 -0400, Jack wrote: > Personally, I like the security of wired networks, and wonder why any > retail establishment would ever use wireless in the first place -- are > they just too lazy/cheap to run networking cable to their cash > registers? The cash registers at my workplace generally have a direct Ethernet connection to the store's front end computer. The wireless access is used for the hand-held terminals (like the one at http://www.symbol.com/products/mobile_computers/mobile_kb_pdt_6800.html) that the stock boys go around with to check inventory, reorder merchandise etc. It's hard to imagine using a wired connection for one of those; you'd need three or four jacks in each aisle. I once tried to access my company's wireless network with my laptop, but it wanted a password (or an encryption key, something like that) that I couldn't oblige with, and it threw me out. I also remember one manager doing the biweekly cigaret inventory, which had to be entered into the Telxon gun, thereby tying it up so that no other work could be done with it. He wrote out the list in longhand instead, then took the terminal home with him and tried to enter it there. He couldn't understand why it didn't work, until I pointed out the little antenna sticking out of the office wall. Shalom ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Interconnect Fees Get Ugly Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:30:50 GMT Seems this little co-op phone company is about to bring the cell carriers to their knees. Who knew that they didn't pay the interconnect charge when cell calls land on wired switches. ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Up and Down, All Around Date: 14 Aug 2004 16:08:45 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The three devices which pain me the > most -- the cable modem, the Vonage Motorola TX box, and the Netgear > Wireless router box -- do not have 'off/on switches' on them to toggle > as needed. They simply have plugs from power supplies (plugged in > wall outlets) to the back of the units. You want to power the device > down you have to unplug them from the back of unit or the wall. PAT] Well, in your special circumstances, you might get more than average benefit from using X-10 adapters on those connections. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "If I seem unduly clear to you, dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 you must have misunderstood dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu what I said." -- Alan Greenspan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I have thought about X-10 switches but I do not think they are supposed to *all* go back on at the same instant, which would require three X-10 adapters to go on this already overcrowded desk. I know this mess is about to drive me completely crazy. I read a message here in the Digest last week from someone who said his firewalls and routers stayed up for a *long time* and he thought maybe it was the DHCP leases expiring and getting uncoordinated in how they got renewed, and he recommended I tweak things a little better. If that person would engage in some private conversation with me, I would be most appreciative. I do know that given my inability since the brain aneurysm to concentrate very well or learn anything new I have just about come to the decision to stay out -- stay away completely -- from any form of networking. That little problem seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back as the saying goes. I'd love to be able to do various jobs at one time, such as my weather station, my continuously on cams, etc, and of course the several hours per day I spend on this Digest and sweeping away spam. I'd love to sit in my yard with a laptop to work on the Digest as well but to do all that requires the ugly word n-e-t-w-o-r-k-i-n-g, and as I said when I started this thread, the problems I have seen with that have just about blown my fuse for the last time. Can anyone help me set it up once and for finally? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jay Hennigan Organization: Disgruntled Postal Workers Against Gun Control Subject: Re: NorVergence is Having Popular Leasing Hound and Threaten Me Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:27:02 -0700 On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:52:35 -0700, Pelco Sales & Service wrote: > NorVergence sent our Equipment in and three days later they went > under. Now Popular Leasing out of Missouri is threatening me to pay > up or else. What can I do? I haven't even had the equipment hooked > up. If you haven't had it hooked up, did you sign an acceptance letter indicating that it was delivered and working? If so, why would you do that!?!? If not, then tell the leasing company that the equipment was never accepted or installed, and that they're welcome to it once they sign a letter drafted by your lawyer that they'll never bother you again. Also, request copies of all leasing documents from the hound. Check to see if initials or signatures have been forged indicating acceptance of terms or of the equipment itself. ------------------------------ From: Jay Hennigan Organization: Disgruntled Postal Workers Against Gun Control Subject: Re: Digest Archives Search on Norvergence Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:32:00 -0700 On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:00:11 -0500, RJ Strauss wrote: > Is there a way to search any information that has been published in the > Digest about Norvergence? http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=norvergence&as_ugroup=comp.dcom.telecom ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 02:56:47 -0400 Levi wrote: > You get what you pay for. I am not willing to devote hours of my > weeks to troubleshooting and developing contingency plans for dealing > with outages just to save a few bucks a month. > Look at other VOIP providers before considering Vonage. This seems to be typical experience for anyone who dives head first into a new technology and expects to rely on it as their primary mission critical application. And you are right, you get exactly what you deserve when you do that. Likewise, I've been seeing complaints on dslreports about Vonage that go something like "We use Vonage for our business and this outage is unacceptable! We're looking elsewhere for service." [ See: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11032185~root=voip~mode=flat] When I read drivel like that, I say, damned right you're looking elsewhere! Vonage has its place, but not yet as a utility, and certainly not a replacement to five-nines service. Right now it's a convenient way to save money in applications that *aren't* critical. I can easily see Vonage in use for a business as, say, a tie line to cut down on interoffice LD costs, or as part of a telephone hunt group that at least starts with a standard POTS line that will stay up when Vonage is down. In either case, it'll be an annoyance but not a calamity when the service breaks. But no, despite being well aware of the risks, it seems like businesses don't care and throw caution to the winds ... and then cry to high heaven when things don't work out. Yes, such outages might be unacceptable. But *I* find it unacceptable to do business with a company that will take such risks without taking the time to have a backup plan in place. FWIW, I signed up with Vonage today. After playing around with it a bit, I have to say I'm impressed with the sound quality, call handling and the web interface and built-in features, which are way superior to anything a CLEC or ILEC can offer or at least, is willing to offer. Even so, I'm not dumping the landline just yet. After removing all the calling packages Verizon offered and dumbing the landline down to just a simple bare-bones dial-tone at about $7 a month, I'm still saving money AND I have a basic failsafe that I can plug my phone into for when (not if) Vonage has another outage. And even if I decide to drop the landline altogether, I'll still have my cell phone with its roaming package, so when (again, not if) Vonage has an outage, I at least have my pick of three wireless carriers to make and receive my calls with. And FWIW, Verizon hasn't exactly given me five nines lately. Slow dial tone has been common in my area, and apparently Verizon doesn't seem to care that much about maintaining its CO batteries as our service has always been a bit finicky (or even nonexistent) after brownouts or power outages (dial tone was out for a good 2-3 hours during the northeast blackout last year, even though our lights only went out for 10 seconds here when the blackout hit). I'm in Central NJ, so it's not like Verizon would find it not cost effective to maintain service here. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'm sorry to hear about the problems > you have had with a company that has generally done okay for me. > Anyone who wants to try Vonage and get an e-coupon good for a month > of free service can ask me. This is NOT for people who get a Vonage > telephone adapter from a store; you need to use the link in the email > coupon I send to you sign up, but if you want to do it that way by > email and get the adapter a few days later by Fed Express you can do > it through me, get the number assigned, etc and whatever kind of > service you sign up for, you get the second month free. Write and > ask for your e-coupon. ptownson@massis.csail.mit.edu PAT] Damn, I wish I had remembered this from the last time you mentioned it Pat. Ah well, Best Buy was offering a rebate that will end up saving me $50 compared to what I'd have paid if I signed up for the service online, so I guess that's still not too shabby. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not had nearly as many requests for e-coupons since Vonage started retailing through Best Buy and other retailers. Basically it is the same deal; either you placed the order through me, had the TA dropped shipped to you from Vonage and in the process got the 'e-coupon' to redeem, or else (now) you can buy it from Best Buy, use the same credit card if you wish, and packaged with the TA is a coupon to get you a free month of service. I've had some people get it from Best Buy, do all the paperwork and get their month of free service, *then* come on the net and ask me for an e-coupon to get a free month via me as well. You should know Vonage will not honor my e-coupons that way. There is no such thing as *two* free months of service. Either go through me and have the TA box drop shipped to you in the mail and get your free month from me, or get the TA box at various retailers and let *them* give you your free month. And speaking of Vonage, I wonder if that 'new' Motorola TA box is the source of my grief with my network lately. I never, or rarely, had these up and downs when I had Vonage as a port on the router instead of at the head of the line as it is now. Although the phone seems to 'sound better' as it is now at the head of the line, I may sacrifice that to not have so many LAN up and downs, unless someone out there takes pity on an old man and helps me do the tweaks as needed. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #381 ******************************