From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 12 17:43:43 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iBCMhhj06187; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:43:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:43:43 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412122243.iBCMhhj06187@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 #594 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:44:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 594 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Entrenched Interests Vrs Disruptive Technology (delete 'z' for address) Spammer With a Toll Free Number and Really Big BALLS (Shlichter1) Telemarketing to Cell Phones (jmeissen@aracnet.com) Re: Western Electric and Al Capone (Jim Haynes) Re: Sprint, Nextel in Merger Talks (Tony P.) Re: FAX vs VOIP (DevilsPGD) Re: Radar Detectors (DevilsPGD) Re: Urban Legends Reference Pages: (Celling Your Soul) (Dave VanHorn) Re: What's VOip With Pictures Called? (Tony P.) Re: Calling Card Needed -- Short Interaction Sequence (DevilsPGD) Re: Calling Card Needed -- Short Interaction Sequence (Clark Griswold) Re: Cellphones Aloft: The Inevitable is Closer (John Levine) Re: Radar Detectors (David Clayton) Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? (Pete Romfh) Re: EarthLink High Speed Internet Service Ranked Highest (L Smithson) Re: Kevin Mitnick Recalled (Danny Burstein) Re: Kevin Mitnick Recalled (John Levine) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. 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: Walter Dnes (delete 'z' to get address) Subject: Entrenched Interests Versus Disruptive Technology Date: 12 Dec 2004 17:04:08 GMT Reply-To: see_my_sig_at_bottom_of_message@waltdnes.org On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:38:11 -0500, Ron Chapman, wrote: > Books, by their very nature, are wrought from processes that distill > the crap out and leave hard-considered facts and opinions. But on the > net, all it takes is one crazy to set up a "the Holocaust was a fake" > blog -- and how does a ten year old know how to interpret that? He > doesn't. But he reads it on the net ... so does he just go ahead and > use that as "fact" to back up his assignment? > It's all about EDITING. > Now, maybe if my kid's research was done online using only EDITED > resources, resources that have been through the same excruciating > processes that produce printed books, that would be fine. 100% taurine excrement. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a published book that's been around for a century. "Mein Kampf" is another book that was published long before the internet came into existance. Would you accept them as authoritative if some kid used them as sources for his homework assignment??? > Unedited information makes for dangerous waters. It requires at the > least parental coaching to help the child become a well-rounded and > educated netizen. One should NOT leave the child alone to use the > naked net to finish an assignment. My parents could leave me in the > library by myself to do that, and I could leave my kid in the library > today, but not on the net. Not alone and without guidance. When someone once complained that 90% of science fiction was crud, Theodore Sturgeon shot back that 90% of *EVERYTHING* was crud. This is popularly known as "Sturgeon's Law". He was generally right, although some people might argue that 90% is a conservative number. Children need to be taught critical thinking and to critically examine *ALL* "facts", regardless of where those alleged facts are found, regardless of whether it's on the web or in a "respected publication". Now to get onto the topic of my subject ... when a new technology comes out that undermines entrenched interests using old tech, the old entrenched interests will fight tooth-and-nail to destroy the new tech. - Gutenberg's invention of the printing-press undermined the religious establishment's authority. Priests, often the only people literate in Latin, could open up an expensive parchment Latin Bible and tell the populace "The Holy Bible says blah blah blah...". Cheap English translations via Gutenberg's printing press allowed the populace to respond "No, it doesn't". The Church's initial reaction was to ban English Bible translations, and burn their authors at the stake (e.g. William Tyndale in 1536) - The automobile was fought tooth-and-nail by the horse-and-buggy industry. Ever heard of the "Red Flag Law"? - Low-cost (and for that matter no-cost) Open Source software is threatening to undermine Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft's response is to amass software patents and spread FUD about Open Source software ( http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5457879.html ). And then there's the Darl McBride fiaSCO. Web-publishing threatens the grip of the old-line media. In the old days, you needed to be a multi-millionaire, if not a billionaire, to own the media necessary to promote your version of the truth. Today, anybody with a few dollars a month for an internet connection and a webpage has the chance to have their story seen by a worldwide audience. And the old-line media are fighting tooth-and-nail to discredit/outlaw/hobble the new media. I don't deny that there will be plenty of garbage in the new media, but then again, there's plenty of garbage in the old media. Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow the instructions at the end of the 550 message. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for your excellent rebuttal. Just as there is **much** -- maybe a large majority of the stuff on the net -- which is total trash and to be certain it is *very cheap* and easy to mass produce here; I do not feel, as you do not, that 'cheap and easy to produce' equals trash automatically. And at the same time, arduous, time-consuming, relatively expensive to produce work does not equal 'good'. Consider in the early 1980's as Usenet and the mailing lists were first getting started, and how the newspapers used to fight us tooth and nail. What we said here had not appeared in the New York Times or Mrs. Graham's publications, the Washington Post or NewsWeak, so therefore there was no currency to it. As the web began to get underway in 1994-95, the newspapers were ever so eager to report all the bad things they could about us. Remember Joe Abernathy, for example, and his perfectly snotty reports -- filled with all kinds of bald faced lies which appeared in the print media in the early 1990's? Yes, the newspapers all have web sites now; they have to be in the loop after all, but don't think for a minute they are friends. And remember the New York Times reporter who had the audacity to ask in print here in this Digest "if you" (meaning me and other web publishers) "ask for money from your readers, how do we" (meaning the print media guys) "know you are not just charlatans collecting money to line your pockets?" Can you imagine that? As though newspapers were all so pure and white as snow and honest. Most of them are good and honest people, but then, so are many or most web publishers. And recall the radio personality from National Public Radio who asked here if I had been given permission to 'beg for money on the net' and I asked him "who gave *you* permission to spend days on end doing fund raising for NPR?" Somehow they are good, the web publishers are supposed to be the bad guys. I don't believe it. And Walt, your reference to Mr. Gutenberg, and his printing press: To the gentleman who castigated *me* in a slight of hand way because due to a typo error I got an additional /t/ in Gutenberg's name, Walt, you were mostly correct; Gutenberg's original intention was to 'bring glory to God and Mother Church' by his new ability to compile all the scriptures in a form convenient and easy for the common person. The church had fallen into such disarray in the middle ages and many of its teachings had become so heretical, his new invention would bring an end to all that confusion and ignorance, which it did do, but ultimatly the joke was on Gutenberg wasn't it? Over a space of about a hundred years, by the late 1500's, there were printing presses all over Europe, around a million of them, printing all kinds of things. Gutenberg thought his invention would solidify the church's power and make corrections as needed in its teachings. We know now that was not the case at all. And today, the net serves as a good check on the crud which gets printed in the established media, doesn't it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shlichter1@aol.com (Shlichter1) Date: 12 Dec 2004 18:51:18 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Spammer with a toll free number and really big BALLS The following number and address were on a Spam that I received. I called his number and was really surprised, I got him and his comment was there was an optout, there was not, beside who in their right mind would give a spammer your e-mail to let him know it was good. The slim even called me back, he must have real time ANI. Let him know what you think about Spam, let your friends also know. Give your local pay phone operator a boost in money since with all these Cell Phones he is not making as much. The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. Apple Elite II BBS will return. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I did *not* edit this message and remove the phone number, etc. Steve did not give us any phone number, although I looked everywhere for it including my trash basket. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Telemarketing to Cell Phones Date: 12 Dec 2004 19:24:53 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com A thread in the local forsale newsgroup here has been debating the legality of making telemarketing calls to cell phones (in the US). While most people seem to believe it's NOT legal, no one has been able to provide a specific reference. Most people cite the TCPA, but it specifically refers to the use of automated dialing equipment. While most telemarketing sweatshops use autodialers, the question concerns local businesses who harvest phone numbers from, for instance, the state Department of Motor Vehicles and manually call the numbers on the list. Are these calls, in fact, legal? And if not, can someone cite a specific reference? John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Western Electric and Al Capone Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:18:59 GMT In article ,Peter Brooks wrote: > Small correction: the folks portrayed in "The Eudaemonic Pie", Doyne > Farmer, Norm Packard, et. al. were not successful ultimately in > beating roulette for purely technological reasons (some devices didn't Yeah, I can see that I failed grossly to communicate what I meant to say. Where they were successful was in the concept that a roulette wheel is, at least some of the time, susceptible to statistical prediction. jhhaynes at earthlink dot net ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Sprint, Nextel in Merger Talks Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:14:18 -0500 In article , pro_engineer_97 @yahoo.com says: > I have been employed by Sprint PCS in the past, and am currently > employed by Nextel. Nextel has excellent benefits, and has a great > working environment. They don't just "talk the talk", they truly care > about their employees. They will even give you $3,500 to assist with > adopting a child. > Sprint, on the other hand, has mediocre benefits at best, and treat > their employees as "just another number". > The news of this merger is a big disappointment to me, and I advise all > Nextel employees to get ready for the "shaft". > I reactivated my resume on all of the major job boards today. Sprint is > not a good place to work. What a shame. I can't stand the consolidation that is going on in the wireless market over the past few years. Nextel seems like it really is a progressive company. Too bad it's going to get suppressed by Sprint. Best of luck in your search for a new job. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: FAX vs VOIP Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:17:38 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In message dave@compata.com (Dave Close) wrote: >> My 3-year old FAX machine works fine on my Vonage service. > Sending or receiving? Vonage, for example, provides support for > incoming fax calls, especially if you notify them. But when I've tried > sending, my fax generally is unable to sync with the destination > machine. Using *99? I walked into a bar the other day and ordered a double. The bartender brought out a guy who looked just like me. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Radar Detectors Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:17:39 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In message Tim@Backhome.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When traveling south on Pennsylvania > Avenue (highway 75 here) the stop/go lights are timed in such a way > that if you make one light, and *travel at the right speed* you can > make all the lights all the way downtown. On the other hand, miss one > light, and you miss them all. PAT] What do you mean "miss them all"? -- If you miss one, you stop and wait, then they're all green again. You get up to speed and get through the rest on schedule, no? I walked into a bar the other day and ordered a double. The bartender brought out a guy who looked just like me. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Dave VanHorn From: Dave VanHorn Subject: Re: Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Celling Your Soul) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:36:01 -0500 One thing I've noticed lately, is a lot of telemarketing calls from Quebec. Note that Canadian telemarketers are not bound by US law. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: What's VOip With Pictures Called? Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:22:50 -0500 In article , RickMerrill@comTHROWcast.net says: > My guess is that VoIP providers will move towards videophone as soon > as feasible. What do you think? - RM > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If any sort of universal interchange > agreement (on handling each other's traffic) gets started, then > I agree this 'VOIP-CAM' application will be a winner. Bell never did > get too far along with videophone -- in terms of popular usage -- but > I think we live in a different era now. PAT] While it was technically feasible it wasn't economically feasible for Bell to pursue widespread videophone service. The bandwidth needed at the time would have required them to build a complete switching infrastructure just to handle the video. Not cheap and that is precisely why Bell abandoned video service at the time. Now of course there are all sorts of IP based videoconferencing solutions. We use the Polycomm units at our office to hook up to other agencies and it all goes out via IP. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Calling Card Needed -- Short Interaction Sequence Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:35:20 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In message Danny Burstein wrote: >> Even OneSuite charges 55 cents from payphone. >> But for that 55 cents you can make multiple successive calls. > Then their billing arrangement is broken. The FCC regs are that the > pay phone operator gets their kickback of (usually about $0.30 [a]) > for _each_ call. If you (typically) hit the " * " button on the keypad > to tell your phonecard service to let you make a second call without > having to hangup and redial the whole kit and kaboodle, the FCC regs > treat that one as, yes, a second call, with an additional $0.30. Interesting, do you know what defines when a second call starts? Peter: I read a book about this sort of thing once. Brian: Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't nothing? Peter: Oh yeah. ------------------------------ From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. Subject: Re: Calling Card Needed -- Short Interaction Sequence Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:28:46 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO wrote: > Even OneSuite charges 55 cents from payphone. > But for that 55 cents you can make multiple successive calls. Not legally, unless One Suite is eating the cost of subsequent calls. Several years ago the rules were changed. Any carrier that allows multiple calls without hanging up is supposed to remit a fee to the phone owner for each call, even if the call was initiated as a follow on call without hanging up. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 2004 01:37:47 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Cellphones Aloft: The Inevitable is Closer Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> The picocell linked to several antennas inside a cable that gathered >> signals from passengers' cellphones and sent them all to a small >> satellite dish, ... > Hey! Maybe they could do the same thing in buildings as well, and we > wouldn't have to worry about running over the thousands of people > wandering around in parking lots talking on their cellphones because > they can't get a signal inside the building :-). Mobile carriers put tiny cells all over the place if there's likely to be significant usage. You find them, for example, in the tunnels under Boston harbor so people can continue talking on their cell phones while they drive as fast as possible to the airport. (Boston traffic is already so chaotic that the extra safety hazard is negligible.) If there's a lot of people in building and crummy cell coverage, it might be fun to call a cell carrier or two and see if they're willing to put in a picocell. I would imagine that some buildings with steel insides might be impractical to cover since the frames act like a Faraday cage and kill any signals. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Radar Detectors Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:06:31 +1100 Tim@Backhome.org contributed the following: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> I wish the cops didn't need cameras and speed traps, but motorists >> have only themselves to blame. > An automatic speed timing/enforcement device that permits up to 39 in > a 25 mph zone is hardly a speed trap. That is a generous buffer. I > am presuming the 25 mph limit is justified, which it usually is in a > residential setting. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When traveling south on Pennsylvania > Avenue (highway 75 here) the stop/go lights are timed in such a way > that if you make one light, and *travel at the right speed* you can > make all the lights all the way downtown. On the other hand, miss one > light, and you miss them all. PAT] A few years ago on a major road in my city, a system was trialled where computerised signs would advise drivers what speed to travel at to get the "green wave" of traffic lights. Unfortunately too many people were stuck in their idiotic habit of travelling to the next red light as quickly as they could, so when the people who did heed the signs arrived at an intersection a little bit later, they were confronted with traffic slowly moving from a red light rather than already moving vehicles. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (Remove the "XYZ." to reply) Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: Pete Romfh Subject: Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:39:44 -0600 Organization: Not Organized John R Levine wrote: > I've had Vonage phone service for nearly two years, > running over the T1 in my office. For the most part > voice quality has been pretty good. Recently I've found > it's often just plain lousy, distortions and dropouts bad > enough that I switch to my cell phone which sounds better. > It seems to be worse in the evening (eastern time). I > looked at some local link statistics and the local > connection doesn't seem to be particularly congested, and > traceroutes show a path from my ISP through Sprint to the > peering point where Vonage connects, with no big delays, > Have other people had voice quality problems with Vonage? > Regards, > John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The > Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna- > be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor "I dropped the > toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. I haven't noticed any major change here in Houston. Cisco-186A behind Buffalo router over 1.2Mbps DSL. Pete Romfh, Telecom Geek & Amateur Gourmet. promfh at hal dash pc dot org ------------------------------ From: LSmithsonvqm@hotmail.com Subject: Re: EarthLink High Speed Internet Service Ranked Highest Date: 12 Dec 2004 08:32:23 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote: > EarthLink Garners Top Honors for Second Consecutive Year > ATLANTA, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- EarthLink (Nasdaq: ELNK), > one of the nation's leading Internet service providers, today > announced that its high-speed Internet service has been recognized by > J.D. Power and Associates in its 2003 Internet Service Provider > Residential Customer Satisfaction Study(SM) with the highest ranking > in customer satisfaction for the second year in a row. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35139843 I see. That is why I got a call this morning with AOL and Time Warner babbling about how great the service they provide using Earthlink lines is. I told the leaches that I would deal with Earthlink directly. ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Recalled Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:57:23 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Lisa Minter writes: > Rummaging around through the Telecom Archives, I found two interesting > items on Kevin Mitnick. I wonder if anyone knows what he has been > doing since 1997 or whenever he got out of prison. From a recent post I made to another group: Subject: Mitnick using his powers for Good. Demonstrates Windows probs "Surfing the Web has never been more risky. "Simply connecting to the Internet -- and doing nothing else -- exposes your PC to non-stop, automated break-in attempts by intruders looking to take control of your machine surreptitiously. "While most break-in tries fail, an unprotected PC can get hijacked within minutes of accessing the Internet. ... "'It's a hostile environment out there,' says tech security consultant Kevin Mitnick, who served five years in prison for breaking into corporate computer systems in the mid-1990s. "Attackers have become extremely indiscriminate." [ snippety snip ] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/hacking/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 2004 01:18:20 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Recalled Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA In article you write: > Rummaging around through the Telecom Archives, I found two interesting > items on Kevin Mitnick. I wonder if anyone knows what he has been > doing since 1997 or whenever he got out of prison. He wrote a fairly bad book about social engineering in 2002. See the Wikipedia article about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick ------------------------------ 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 #594 ******************************