From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 5 18:47:42 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i85MlgH22579; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 18:47:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 18:47:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409052247.i85MlgH22579@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 #416 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Sep 2004 18:47:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 416 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Police: Stalker Used GPS to Track Ex-Girlfriend (Eric Friedebach) How to Call Blocked Canadian 800 Number From U.S. (Mark) NPAC Data Feeds (Larry Gassman) Re: Spoofing Caller-ID (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: The Soft Invasion (Barry Margolin) Re: The Soft Invasion (burris) Re: The Soft Invasion (Dan Lanciani) Re: Sender ID Finds Followers Ahead of Approval (Robert Bonomi) Re: My New DVR From Cable One (DevilsPGD) Re: Party Lines No More? (DevilsPGD) Re: Party Lines No More? (Lisa Hancock) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Police: Stalker Used GPS to Track Ex-Girlfriend Date: 5 Sep 2004 10:47:18 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS, 9-5-04 GLENDALE, Calif. - A Glendale businessman faces stalking charges that allege he attached a cell phone with Global Positioning System technology to his ex-girlfriend's car so he could track her every move and show up unexpectedly wherever she was. In what authorities said was the first stalking case of its kind in Los Angeles County, Ara Gabrielyan, 32, was charged last week with stalking and threatening over a six-month period to kill his former girlfriend and himself. Gabrielyan, who ran an Armenian CD and video specialty shop, is suspected of using GPS technology to pinpoint her location so he could arrange apparent chance encounters at the bookstore, at the airport, even at her brother's grave site. "This is what I would consider stalking of the 21st century -- the utilization of technology to track a victim," said Lt. Jon Perkins of the Glendale Police Department. After the unidentified 35-year-old woman broke off their nearly two-year relationship, Gabrielyan would follow her by car, show up at her doorstep and call her 30 to 100 times a day, she told police. http://tinyurl.com/6jzm3 Eric Friedebach /Favorite OnStar commercial: crying woman drops keys in toilet/ ------------------------------ From: xx-google@telefog.com (Mark) Subject: How to Call Blocked Canadian 800 Numbers From U.S. Date: 5 Sep 2004 00:09:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Some Canadian toll-free numbers are intentionally blocked from U.S. access by their owners, and no alternate non-toll-free number exists. Here are some such numbers: 888-242-2100 Citizenship & Immigration Canada 800-665-0354 Canada Revenue Agency 800-959-1956 Canada Revenue Agency 800-959-8281 Canada Revenue Agency 800-339-6908 ExpressVu 866-801-9995 ExpressVu 888-759-3473 ExpressVu 800-255-4541 Canada Revenue Agency? This frustrated me, so I dug up some ways around the restriction. (I'm in California, area code 510.) None is these methods is dirt cheap, but each is less expensive than going to Canada to make your call. ******************************************************* ******************************************************* ******************************************************* METHOD #1: Get a teleconferencing account from Enunciate of Toronto. The cost for a call like the one I described in method 1 above is US$0.18 per minute, plus an additional US$0.18 per minute if you access the service via Enunciate's toll-free access number (they also have an area code 416 number). Service setup requires you to sign a simple form and fax it back to Enunciate. They bill to a major credit card. This service is a little harder to use, but they'll walk you through it. Call 1-866-504-1079 to directly reach Bruneau, a very helpful corporate sales rep. IMPORTANT: make sure you have Enunciate install your conference account on their Spectel bridge, which assures that your calls to toll-free numbers will go through. Their other bridge blocks most toll-free calls, for reasons that neither they nor I understand. (I don't even know what a bridge is, but it doesn't matter: I do know that Spectel is the bridge for me.) More info: http://www.enunciate.ca ******************************************************* ******************************************************* ******************************************************* METHOD #2: Subscribe to TelCan's callback service, which should allow you to dial any Canadian toll-free number from the U.S for less than 10 cents per minute. They charge a monthly access fee of $4, which is waived for any month in which your usage is at least $20. (I haven't tried this service.) More information: http://www.telcan.net/callback/default.asp ******************************************************* ******************************************************* ******************************************************* METHOD #3: Call someone you know in Canada and have them dial out to your blocked toll-free number and then patch you and the toll-free number together via 3-way calling. (I haven't tried this method.) ******************************************************* ******************************************************* ******************************************************* Do you know of any other ways for Americans to call Canadian toll-free numbers that are blocked from U.S.? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think most 800 numbers simply get translated into a 'regular' number; if you dial via that 'regular' number you call will go through. For example, a friend of mine in Canada (Ontario) who calls me occassionally to counsel me with my computer stuff has my 800 number; but he cannot get through on it -- I have never had it specifically authorized for Canadian or other country use. So he dials in on the area codee 620 version of same number instead. My question is (1) have you tried dialing the untranslated or 'regular' number of the places you want to call and (2) are they refusing to deal with your call on those untranslated numbers? I would think there are various calling plans in your (USA) area code which would make your call cheap enough without the need for all the gymnastics you are otherwise going through to get them on the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Larry Gassman Subject: NPAC Data Feeds Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 07:56:07 -0400 Organization: Cox Communications Is anyone aware of a company providing real-time (or near-real-time) downloads of LNP data ? I am looking for a company getting downloads from the Neustar NPAC and then reselling access to that data. I am envisioning something like a hub-service provider of NPAC data. Hopefully, this data source will be a dumbed-up interface (in relation to the Neustar NPAC-LSMS interface). I want to download data to my own database (not perform a SS7 database dip to a company like Verisign, Syniverse, SNET or TNS). I am looking for a legitimate company and data source (I am presuming this is allowed/legal). Regards. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Spoofing Caller-ID Date: 5 Sep 2004 00:17:41 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , John R. Covert wrote: > Jack Adams wrote: >> I'm guessing that this firm uses in-band 202 signalling to "overwrite" >> any normal CLID message > Your guess would be wrong. As the article said, "Caller ID spoofing > has for years been within the reach of businesses with certain types > of digital connections to their local phone company, and more recently > has become the plaything of hackers and pranksters exploiting > permissive voice over IP systems." That's only true if the gateway equipment serving these networks is configured to treat calling party ID from them as "network provided"; which the relevant interworking documents are quite clear that it should not. And if it's not "network provided" and the provided telephone number is not associated with the same BTN as the actual originating line or trunk, the provided number should not be transmitted to the next switch in the call path. Essentially, LECs that make it possible to "spoof" caller ID like this are broken. The regulators should simply require them to fix themselves; it is _one single bit_ of provisioning information on any switch built since the early 1990s when the formal requirement for interworking Q.931 and ISUP closed down the final loopholes in this area. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: The Soft Invasion Organization: Symantec Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:47:06 -0400 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > This phenomenon is called spyware, or adware. Why are these lumped together these days? Didn't "spyware" used to refer to applications that covertly "phones home" to send information about you and/or your computer to the vendor? Sometimes these are legitimate applications, but the fact that they're sending this information back is not divulged to the user; other times the applications sneak in via trojans or browser exploits. The only thing I can think of that links spyware and adware is that adware also typically gets in via browser exploits. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ From: burris Subject: Re: The Soft Invasion Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 08:41:41 -0400 Monty Solomon wrote: > By WALTER S. MOSSBERG > WHAT IF A private company could legally break into your house and rig > your television so that it would always start up on a special station > the company had created that showed deceptive ads every minute, all > day? And what if, when you tried to change the station, you could > choose only among obscure and dubious channels selected by the > invading company? > Oh, and suppose that same sleazy company could erect billboards for > phony medical cures and get-rich-quick schemes on your lawn anytime, > without your permission? And suppose it could also make a record of > everything you said or did in your house and sell it to other > companies? > You'd be more than angry. You'd be lobbying for jail time for these > guys. But something similar happens every day on the personal > computers of tens of millions of people. It's offensive but legal, and > it's driving its victims crazy. > This phenomenon is called spyware, or adware, and it is rapidly > replacing viruses and spam as the No. 1 hassle associated with using > an Internet-connected computer. Spyware is a type of software placed > surreptitiously on a Windows PC, often by means of a file, downloaded > from a Web site, that is either invisible or is disguised as a > legitimate file. > Once on your PC, spyware can do many nefarious things. Unlike a > virus, it rarely tries to destroy files or propagate itself through > e-mail. Instead, it tries to seize control of key aspects of your > machine and turn them into conduits for selling you junk, or for > gathering information that can help others do so. > There are many forms of spyware, but the big four, which correspond > to the household examples above, are: > http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/report-200408.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The two forms of protection I use > against spies are 'Ad-Aware' and 'Spybot: Seek and Destroy'. Of > course I also use AVG for virus protection. All three of these > items are free on the web and highly effective. PAT] Pat, I couldn't agree more. I have used those three programs since inception and they have never failed to discover and correct a problem if it existed. burris [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On all three of those programs of course, you need to update their dictionary or defintions files from time to time to keep them up to date. Usually whenever I think of it and do a manual run of Spybot or Ad-Aware I just tell them to go check for any updates before they start running. AVG, which scours the entire system nightly, is set to automatically check with its home every two weeks. If AVG does not find the vermin where it is hiding, then one of the other two will find it. Combine those three with Zone Alarm, a free software firewall also available on the net and your protection is reasonable. I do not know why, but Zone Alarm fails to recognize (but does not hassle or tamper with) AVG as a virus protection. Zone Alarm asks when starting up "Do you have any anti-virus protection running? I say 'yes' on account of the AVG, but Zone Alarm keeps saying it does not see any anti-virus stuff running. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:20:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Lanciani Subject: Re: The Soft Invasion > By WALTER S. MOSSBERG > WHAT IF A private company could legally break into your house and rig > your television so that it would always start up on a special station > the company had created that showed deceptive ads every minute, all > day? And what if, when you tried to change the station, you could > choose only among obscure and dubious channels selected by the > invading company? Why exactly is it any more legal for companies to install unauthorized software on my machine than it is for a virus writer to do so? Is it simply because they are (self-identified) "legitimate" businesses rather than individuals? Or is it because they claim that at some point I gave them permission, much as the spammers claim that I signed up for their mail? Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Sender ID Finds Followers Ahead of Approval From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:07:53 +0000 In article , Robert Bonomi wrote: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> By Jim Wagner >> As a new Sender ID specification for beating back spam wends its way >> through the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), some e-mail >> software vendors are not waiting around for its final approval >> before implementing the system that the IETF will eventually bless a >> specification that will be used on e-mail systems throughout the >> world. >> One of the contributors to the Sender ID specification, >> Microsoft (Quote, Chart), has patents pending on certain components >> of the Sender ID technology it has donated to the IETF's >> efforts. Microsoft has repeatedly said that -- even if it is >> granted a patent on the technology -- it would "make licenses >> available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms." >> But the issue has some in the open source world talking. The drive >> in the business community to press ahead with Sender ID comes at a >> time when some in the open source community are claiming the >> licensing stipulations around Sender ID don't interoperate with the >> most popular open source license variant, the General Public License >> (define). >> In a post to the IETF's MARID (MTA Authorization Records in DNS) >> discussion list the chairman of the Apache Software Foundation >> (ASF), Greg Stein, called Microsoft's Royalty-Free Sender ID license >> agreement a barrier to any ASF project. >> http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3402921 >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What exactly is the problem with the >> Open Source proponents? That *they* did not think of it first? >> That Microsoft may get the credit? > Why not try *reading* their position paper on the subject. > Even you might be able to learn something from it. > Do you think there is any problem with an arrangement whereby > Microsoft could, in, say 5 years, after "everybody" is using the > protocol, _change_ the terms for continuing use of the technology > _by_those_CURRENTLY_using_it_ to "if the technology is not embedded in > a MicroSoft product, you must pay $100 for each e-mail message > processed"? Do you have any doubt that MS _would_ do such a thing if > they thought they could get away with it? >> It is really a damn shame when these intelligent men and women fight >> and squabble among themselves while the rest of the world has to >> fight with the spammers. But oh well, most of them probably never >> even see spam (save one or two pieces each day which slip past the >> myriad of filters used by their secretary to get rid of it), > Congratulations PAT, you've just re-proved the definition of USENET. > to wit: "Open mouth, insert foot. Echo internationally." > The ASF (pache oftware oundation) is almost exclusively a > *VOLUNTEER* software development community. 'Secretaries'?? You've > _got_ to be kidding! > If _you_ are only getting one spam message every few minutes on > average, you don't know what a *real* problem is. Contemplate > getting 30-50,000 _per_day_ for one mailbox. A million-plus per day > across all the accounts on the server. >> and those one or two pieces which they do have to view makes them >> angry enough to squabble with other professionals about it, but not >> so angry that they would even consider for a minute getting off >> their own high horses in order to wade through the sewer that the >> net has become with the rest of us. > Rant, based on delusions that are *not* supported by any actual facts. >> Do most of those people even realize how tragic and awful the >> problem of spam has become? I don't think so, otherwise they surely >> would not be blocking the restoration efforts as much as they do, >> would they? > > Nah, I'm *sure* they don't. That's why 'spamassassin' is one of the > '*FREE* for everyone' projects under the ASF umbrella. > > You _have_ heard of spamassassin, haven't you? > In message Fred Goldstein > wrote: >> Another interesting study, from CipherTrust, has just shown that >> the primary users of Sender Policy Framework are (drumroll, please) >> -- Spammers! Yes, it's trivial for a spammer to pass an SPF >> screen. So the main potential benefit is, I suppose, making >> phishing a bit harder or easier for educated users to detect. But >> as an anti-spam weapon, it's nearly worthless. > Which makes sense, SPF was never built to combat spam in the first > place. It was built to combat forgery, and it does that nicely. > Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have heard of Spam Assassin. On my > (unix-based) account at MIT I use it, and the $SPAMBOX is always full > and over loaded. Despite the fact that I have the user-settable point > score set very low (1 or 2 qualifies the mail as 'spam') I still > manage to wind up with 85-90 percent spam in my mailbox each day, > out of *hundreds* of pieces of mail daily. Then you need to _learn_ how to use spam assassin. It *IS* -configurable-. If stuff gets past it, you look for any defining characteristics of what gets past it, and add a rule to filter that. Yeah, it takes a little effort to do that. But, _after_ training, it tends to be *very* effective. I run a home-brew tool, on my mailserver, that is much simpler than spam assassin (I wrote it before spam assassin was available). People only try to send me about 850 junk e-mail messages a day, so I'm not in the 'thousands' range. Quite. I've had *one* junk e-mail get through in the last month. _Two_ in the last three months. I block 2 individual IP addresses, 2 '/24' address ranges, and a '/19' assigned to Nigeria. On top of that, I block half-a-dozen domains by name, and a couple of dozen 'magic phrases'. Plus a special check that anything with an AOL, Netscape, Yahoo, or Hotmail address actually comes from the corresponding servers. In the life of the system there have been _three_ 'false positives'. One when 'netscape' mail started coming from AOL's mail-servers instead of one in the netscape domain. And two for some domains that were hosted by SBC, for which the mail came from Yahoo's servers. > I think I heard that MS was granting the license in prepetuity -- > forever -- to groups working to fight spam. But you seem to be > saying "no matter what Microsoft says, after five or ten years they > will change the terms of the license." I do not think that is so. > PAT] What you "think" doesn't matter. And the issue is not 'will they', but "_could_ they", do it. And, if they could, whether you're willing to bet the entire product line that they _will_not_. MS has _earned_ (many times over) the distrust that the rest of the industry feels towards it. There is also the issue that all 'open source' software comes with the proviso that you can modify, re-use, and even *re-distribute* (as long as you provide the source to all your 'enhancements' as well). You can even charge money for it, as long as you provide source the code 'on request'. The proposed MS license doesn't provide for that same unfettered 'pass through' for the license of the (probably defective) patented technology. At that point, it becomes an _ethical_ issue. Does one stand fast on the basic principles the organization was *founded* on, or does one abandon those principles, for the sake of 'expediency'? Some people feel that behaving ethically *is* critically important. Others, like MicroSoft, don't. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe you would like to do me a favor? My personal Spam Assassin files, (in a directory off of my ~ directory is known as '/.spamassassin') contains these four files: 'bayes_journal', 'bayes_seen', 'bayes_toks' and 'user_prefs'. 'toks' and 'seen' are both very huge binary files. 'journal' is a large file which is in ascii, and readable, consisting of several thousand lines which look like this: The letter 't' followed by a long number which begins 109440 with several more digits following then a single word or phrase, sometimes with a wild card in the middle or on the end of it such as '*word' or 'word*here' or similar. The 'prefs' file is a list of things I can do to improve my lot in life I guess. I am cautioned that I cannot change the system files and definitions (nor would I want to interfere with the work of Mr. Meyerhaus, the sysadmin here at MIT) but that what I do in the 'prefs' file will take effect for my account only. Your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to build for me a Spam Assassin which will resemble your own, with only one or two 'false positives' in a day's time. Do you want to see or examine my 'journal', 'seen', 'toks' or 'prefs' file to do this? Let me know if you wish any files from this end to be sent to you to work with. PAT] ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: My New DVR From Cable One Reply-To: bond-jamesbond@crazyhat.net Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:55:56 GMT In message Danny Burstein wrote: > At a typical charge of $0.20 (20 cents) per kw-hr, that's a bit over > $4/month in electricity. Add another buck or two if you're using air > conditining and have to dump out that heat. Usually worth it, but > worth a thought or two. OTOH, since the majority of the energy used gets converted into heat, it comes straight off your heating bill if you're in an area which gets cold. > (And the "off" switch, if it has one, is only for show). Weird. My Bell ExpressVu PVR does shut off the hard drive when not in use (Although not immediately, it will update the guide and whatever other housekeeping needs to be done first) I'd rather be told "Have a nice day" by someone who doesn't mean it, than to "F--- OFF" by someone who does. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Party Lines No More? Reply-To: bond-jamesbond@crazyhat.net Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:54:42 GMT In message John P. Dearing wrote: > By the 1980's and 1990's so few people still had party lines that many > of them were effectively single party lines. That is, they had no > "mate" on the party line. Bell then started doing "party line > reassociations" which is putting party lines back together. You'd look > for a Ring party with no mate and find a Tip party with no mate. Put > them together and you now have a party line again. Any idea how much it cost them to put together parties onto party lines again? I'd rather be told "Have a nice day" by someone who doesn't mean it, than to "F--- OFF" by someone who does. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Party Lines No More? Date: 5 Sep 2004 13:20:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com John P. Dearing wrote > In Pennsylvania, the party-line tariff doesn't exist anymore (only as > a grandfathered offering). This means that subscribers with existing > party lines can keep then and aren't forced to get rid of them but no > new party lines will be offered. A slight correction ... Some years ago party line customers in Pa were sent a letter saying their party service was discontinued and would become private lines. AFAIK, Verizon no longer offers party service in Pa at all. I don't know about smaller companies. Prior to this, party service was restricted to existing customers who already had it. I've seen this notice in other states. ------------------------------ 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. 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 #416 ******************************