The Telecom Digest for September 08, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 243 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:21:47 -0700
From: John <jmeissen@aracnet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <201009070221.o872Ll1N022057@server.meissen.org>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>> You're absolutely right about keyloggers. Unfortunately, many are now
>> being spread via rootkits, which often have a booting component that is
>> invisible to the operating system.
>.........
>And which Operating System are you referring to?
>
>Anyone got the stats of how many non-Windows OSs are ever infected by
>root kits etc?
Given that the term originated in the Unix world (where someone whould
hack in, get root access and replace a number of standard system files
with specially modified versions) I would say probably quite a few.
I fact, that's one of the specific problems with root-escalation
vulnerabilities in Linux.
john-
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:37:44 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <pan.2010.09.07.22.37.41.456603@myrealbox.com>
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:21:47 -0700, John wrote:
> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: You're absolutely right about
>>> keyloggers. Unfortunately, many are now being spread via rootkits,
>>> which often have a booting component that is invisible to the operating
>>> system.
>>.........
>>And which Operating System are you referring to?
>>
>>Anyone got the stats of how many non-Windows OSs are ever infected by
>>root kits etc?
>
> Given that the term originated in the Unix world (where someone whould
> hack in, get root access and replace a number of standard system files
> with specially modified versions) I would say probably quite a few.
>
> I fact, that's one of the specific problems with root-escalation
> vulnerabilities in Linux.
>
Yep, I suppose that there must be some historical and/or rare
vulnerabilities in Unix/Linux systems *now*, but the bare facts are that
these threats that being referred to now are almost solely Windows
based, yet are always referred to without that obvious qualifier.
Someone please show me where these infamous "rootkits" have compromised
non-Windows systems in comparison to Windows in the last 10 years and I'll
give these threats a little more credence.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
***** Moderator's Note *****
OK, children: play nice.
I have a small amount of experience in this area. Here's some free
advice - the moment you commit yourself to defending any piece of
software because of the name on the box it came in, you lose.
Microsoft's operating systems lead the "worst offender" list of virus
magnets because Microsoft chose to make their products easier to use
and thus more prone to malware. The company feels that security is a
public-relations issue, since Microsoft's marketing team knows that
the cost of infections and loss-of-use are "Externalities" that have
nothing to do with the all-important goal of maintaining the market
share which makes Microsoft's monopoly a self-fullfilling prophecy.
But -
ANY software can be attacked, and owned, by knowledgeable crackers
who find an attack vector which hasn't been plugged. IT DOESN'T MATTER
what name is on the box! The only reason that the various *nix-based
systems have the appearance of security is that the exploit writers
have had such an easy time with Windows: a lot more machines to
attack, combined with a careless and callous attitude about security,
and therefore "Microsoft" products are "insecure".
As *nix varients gain market share, they will be attacked more often,
and for the same reasons as Windows. The most well-known flavors of
Linux, for example, concentrate on ease-of-use (it worked for
Microsoft, didn't it?), and will therefore become targets in their
turn.
Some distributions of *nix are "secure" (for most flavors of security)
because the people behind them take a lot of time and trouble to
make them as secure as possible, and their market share varies in
inverse relationship to the level of security that they have
earned. FreeBSD is a lot more secure than a typical Linux varient,
because those who work on it CHOSE to make it so, and to suffer the
reduced popularity that comes with requiring users to rtfm and to take
a part in securing their systems. But, having learned Debian Linux, it
remains my OS of choice. I do what I can to keep my OS secure, but I'm
not willing to climb the BSD learning curve, so I've made a choice to
forgo the added security of FreeBSD in order to enjoy OS I'm used to.
You can't have it both ways: more popularity means less security.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:47:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <i63cvg$98l$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <i61qck$1hvl$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote:
>In article <i617fb$p38$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
>David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>A good example is "1e100.net" which on the surface looks really
>>bogus.
>
>Until you realize just what number that is, and which [company] takes
>its name from it.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Isn't 1e100 = 1?
No.
1 x 10**100 == 10**100 == a googol
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:08:43 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <5qKdncEDza8WHxjRnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <i61qck$1hvl$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote:
>In article <i617fb$p38$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
>David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>A good example is "1e100.net" which on the surface looks really
>>bogus.
>
>Until you realize just what number that is, and which takes its name
>from it.
>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Isn't 1e100 = 1?
that's computerese pseudo 'scientific notation' for: 1 x (10 to the 100th power)
NOT '1 to the 100th power' as you're apparently thinking.
In that context, 'e' doesn't mean simply .exponent', it means '10 to that power'
Look up the definition of the numeric quantity 'a google', and all will become
clear.
For a really big number, see 'google-plex'. <grin>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 04:57:44 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <op.vinm6iilitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:23:48 -0400, after a submission by Garrett Wollman
<wollman@bimajority.org>, the Moderator wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>Isn't 1e100 = 1?
Mmm ... 1^100 = 1. But 1e100 = 1 x 10^100 = 10^100 = one goo... (gaackh,
the forces of darkness won't let me pronounce the rest, I'm choking ...)
-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:46:32 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <38ea3.679eeb72.39b79c38@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/7/2010 6:24:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com writes:
> Mmm ... 1^100 = 1. But 1e100 = 1 x 10^100 = 10^100 = one
> goo... (gaackh, the forces of darkness won't let me pronounce the
> rest, I'm choking ...)
I thought the numeric quantity was googol or gogol, not Google.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
I really couldn't remember "e" notation for exponentiation. Or is it
logarithms?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:22:45 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <op.viodb7aoitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:46:32 -0400, Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 9/7/2010 6:24:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
> tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> Mmm ... 1^100 = 1. But 1e100 = 1 x 10^100 = 10^100 = one
>> goo... (gaackh, the forces of darkness won't let me pronounce the
>> rest, I'm choking ...)
>I thought the numeric quantity was googol or gogol, not Google.
Right you are, Wes. Googol, that is. Note that I choked before I
could finish writing that word. (Gogol (Nikolai Vasilievich), OtOH,
was a Russian author of roughly two centuries ago.)
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I really couldn't remember "e" notation for exponentiation. Or is it
> logarithms?
Heh ... Engineers tend to use "aeb" to mean: a x 10^b .
Mathematicians tend to use e^b for ... well, for e^b.
Nobody uses that e notation for logarithms as such,
although logarithms are ... well, somehow implicated here.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:56:37 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <sMKdndb55tBoBRvRnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <38ea3.679eeb72.39b79c38@aol.com>,
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I really couldn't remember "e" notation for exponentiation. Or is it
>logarithms?
>
it's strictly from computer science. Dating to the early days of the
FORTRAN programming language, and being able to 'reasonably' parse such
values on _input_. Internally values are stored as a 'characteristic'
(the 'significant figures' and an 'exponent', with the base for the exponent
being 'implied', and thus not physically present. since the implied base
was the same for all exponent-factor numbers it was omitted 'to save
bandwidth' <grin>
A number of early computers actually stored data internally as decimal
(*NOT* binary) values, thus the 'e-format' output was a 'natural'
representation of the internal data format.
In this context, the 'e' is a sort-of shorthand for 'exponent' (with an
implied 'power of ten' context), not to be confused with the 'e' that is
the base for natural logarithms.
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:50:32 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <ANadnbPwFLbFERjRnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <pan.2010.09.06.05.47.58.659723@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:00:59 +0000, David Kaye wrote:
>
>> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's one threat to keep you awake at night: Keylogging software, which
>>>is deposited on a PC by a virus, records all keystrokes - including the
>>>strongest passwords you can concoct - and then sends it surreptitiously
>>>to a remote location.
>>
>> Not to be picky, but keyloggers aren't deposited by viruses, though they
>> are desposited by malware (the general term for malicioius software).
>>
>> You're absolutely right about keyloggers. Unfortunately, many are now
>> being spread via rootkits, which often have a booting component that is
>> invisible to the operating system.
>.........
>And which Operating System are you referring to?
>
>Anyone got the stats of how many non-Windows OSs are ever infected by
>root kits etc?
Look up the infamous "Morris worm" -- it came the closes of anything to
date to shutting down the entire Internet. It utilized specific exploits
for several different hardware platforms and O/S's , none of which were
e MS products. "primary" target was DEC VAX hardware, running U.C. Berkeley
Unix. Number of machines infected was orders of magnitude smaller than
say what "I love you", or "Melissa" hit, number of users affected (as
a percentage of the 'entire' Internet-using community) was far *higher*.
As for a 'root kit' that is subject to definition. There were UNIX exploits
out in te 80s/90s that replaced the standard system 'shared library' ("libc")
with ones where certain information was 'filtered' and not visible to the
calling program. e.g. processes that 'ps' or similar tools were now
blind to, or directories that existed but were invisible to any directory
activity other that a 'cd'.
In round one of those wars, the bad guys would replace the utility program
itself, e.g. 'ps', or 'ls', with one that would suppress the display of
the bag guy activities. Round two, they replaced the dynamic-load library
that the 'regular' executables relied on. That way an integrity test of
the executable still showed 'unmodified', although it was "lying through
its teeth" about what was going on on the system. These are the kinds of
reason you can't trust anything on a compromised system without verifying
that every component it relies on is unchanged -- it's generally impractical
to do a complete verify, and it is usually far quicker and less labor
intensive to do a complete re-install.
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:46:34 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <siegman-792722.12463306092010@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
Moderator Bill Horne wrote:
> Do you remember the "Cue Cat"? It was an optical bar scanner that
> users could attach to their PC in order to scan bar codes from
> magazines or TV so that users could get information about products
> that interested them. It died a quick and expensive death, because
Heck, I remember -- at least, I think I remember; never know for sure
these days -- a computer hobbyist magazine that printed complete
programs (that is, binary program code) as crude bar codes in the
magazine. so you could read these little programs into your PC using
some kind of simple hand-held scanner.
Anyone else recall this? Was it in Radio Shack TRS-80 days?
[Copied to ba.internet because I believe there are old-timers in that NG
also.]
Date: 7 Sep 2010 11:06:15 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <i65kd7$o0j$1@panix2.panix.com>
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Moderator Bill Horne wrote:
>
>> Do you remember the "Cue Cat"? It was an optical bar scanner that
>> users could attach to their PC in order to scan bar codes from
>> magazines or TV so that users could get information about products
>> that interested them. It died a quick and expensive death, because
>
>Heck, I remember -- at least, I think I remember; never know for sure
>these days -- a computer hobbyist magazine that printed complete
>_programs_ (that is, binary program code) as crude bar codes in the
>magazine. so you could read these little programs into your PC using
>some kind of simple hand-held scanner.
>
>Anyone else recall this? Was it in Radio Shack TRS-80 days?
BYTE used to do that a lot in the late seventies and early eighties, also
they published some books that had programs in barcode in the back. It
was actually a very convenient idea in the days when programs were much
smaller than they are today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:42:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Gmail phone service makes calling anywhere from home cheap.
Message-ID: <p0624087fc8ab7a62384e@[192.168.1.70]>
The Home Phone Is Back!
Google's new Gmail phone service makes calling anywhere from home
cheap and crystal clear.
By Farhad Manjoo
Posted Thursday, Aug. 26, 2010, at 5:15 PM ET
Among the many prophecies that techies take for granted, none seem
more certain than the death of the home phone. Just look at that
sorry thing, if you even still have one: Your landline remains fixed
in a single spot; it can't text, take pictures, access the Web, or
play games; and it's plagued by telemarketers and robocalls. Since
most people find it impossible to navigate modern life without a cell
phone-and because it's expensive and somewhat redundant to have both
a landline and a cell plan-it's no surprise that people are ditching
their home phones in droves. In 2003, according to the National
Center for Health Statistics, fewer than 5 percent of American adults
got by with only a cell phone. By 2009, that number was nearly 23
percent-and the agency found that the rate at which people are
abandoning landlines is increasing.
I suspect, though, that many people who cancel their landlines
experience pangs of regret. The cell phone, after all, has its own
problems. There's a good chance it doesn't work very well in your
home or office. Even when it doesn't drop calls or take 30 seconds to
connect, the quality of voice calls can range from "guy stuck in a
car wash" to "guy stuck in a car wash with the windows rolled down
and the radio blaring." In these moments, it's hard not to miss the
trusty old home phone.
That explains why I haven't joined the ranks of the landline-less.
Instead, I pay the phone company about $20 a month to get a very
basic plan, and then I use the home phone in conjunction with various
Internet services to make very cheap calls. The service I use most
often is Google Voice, which does several amazing things. It gives me
a single number that rings all my phones, it transcribes my
voicemail, and it lets me respond to text messages in my e-mail. Best
of all, it lets me make calls through my home phone over Google's
servers, which is cheaper than dialing directly. There's no charge to
sign up for Google Voice, and it lets me call anyone in the United
States and Canada for free; international calls are very cheap. (I
also often use Skype on my iPhone, which, in my house, sounds much
better than my iPhone.)
On Wednesday, Google merged Google Voice with Gmail, building a phone
in your inbox. After downloading a small app, Gmail users in the
United States will now be able to dial standard phones from their
e-mail. (The feature is rolling out gradually, so you may have to
wait a few days for it to work on your account.) You don't need a
phone to do it; instead, Gmail turns into a speakerphone using your
computer's microphone and speakers. (You've probably got all the
necessary hardware built into your laptop; if you're on a desktop,
you can get a USB headset.)
In my tests, the new service worked easily and flawlessly. You simply
type a number or contact's name into the new Gmail calling-pane and
hit "Call." Google's engineers built a sophisticated echo-cancellation
algorithm into the system, so calls sound clear even when you're not
using a headset. You don't need a Google Voice number to make outbound
calls from Gmail, but if you want to receive calls, you'll need to be
a Voice user. (Sign up at https://www.google.com/voice.) When someone
calls your Google Voice number, you can answer in Gmail in addition to
all your phones. All of Google Voice's call features work inside
Gmail-you can jump into a call while someone is leaving you a
voicemail, you can record your calls, and you can switch calls between
Gmail and another phone while you're in the middle of a call. (For
now, the service is available on the desktop version of Gmail, not the
mobile version; it also hasn't been rolled out to anyone outside the
United States or to Google Apps, the business version of Gmail. Google
has hinted that it will make the service available to these other
users at some point.)
...
http://www.slate.com/id/2265201/
***** Moderator's Note *****
I use the service: it performs as well as this reviewer says.
The only inconvenience is that a single account can't have more than
one "landline" phone number, so anyone in your home who wants "their"
Google voice number routed to a cell phone or a different landline
must have a different account.
Sad to say, the best I could do with the available selection of
numbers was 339-DOG-TITS. ;-)
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:42:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Glut of Shows Unwatched
Message-ID: <p06240883c8ab833d4b8c@[192.168.1.70]>
The Glut of Shows Unwatched
By DAVID CARR
September 5, 2010
The great thing about modern technology is that you never have to
miss anything on television. That's also the terrible thing about it.
Last Sunday, I was traveling and did not see "Mad Men." As someone
who cares about being in the know, when I got back on Monday, I
wanted to catch up on the episode. Because I spend time on Twitter, I
already knew that the episode included a creative session conducted
in the nude, so I wanted to see it for myself before I came across
other spoilers.
Having set my DVR - I subscribe to the FiOS television service from
Verizon - for just such a circumstance, my wife and I plopped down on
Monday night for a little time with Don and Peggy. I hit play, and
then the screen went blank. After several more attempts, I called in
the household's chief technology officer.
"You recorded the high-def channel," said my 13-year-old daughter
Maddie, adding that seeing as I own a cheap set from Costco, it
wasn't going to play.
Check, but not checkmate. Verizon has an on-demand service, but as it
turns out "Mad Men" doesn't show up for a few days. Starting to feel
desperate, I thought for a moment about hopping on the laptop and
searching BitTorrent for an illegal copy, but given that I make a
living creating original content for a large media company, stealing
from another one did not seem like a good idea.
Then I remembered iTunes. Right there for $2.99, Season 4, Episode 6,
"Waldorf Stories." As I took the iPad downstairs to put it closer to
the wireless signal, I told my wife it was going to take about 30
minutes to download. When I got back upstairs, she was already asleep
and I shrugged and settled in for a little me time with the Mad Men.
I woke up in the middle of the night with the iPad perilously
balanced on my less-than-flat midsection, wondering what I had missed.
That was Monday. By Wednesday, Steve Jobs, the sensei of all consumer
desires, had announced the resurrection of Apple TV. For $99, I could
buy a new geegaw from Apple that would allow me to rent, not buy,
television shows for 99 cents that would play on devices that won't
fit on my stomach, like big flat-screen televisions. (Then again, for
the time being only Fox and ABC are doing television business with
Apple, so it would not have ended my search for "Mad Men.")
Apple is hardly alone. Amazon, Netflix and Google are getting in the
television game. And all of them want to make sure that I have the
means to dial up the programming I want at a time of my choosing on a
device of my selection. Everyone wants to make sure that I never miss
a thing.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/business/media/06carr.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
Telecom? I guess so: I've almost stopped keeing track. Is it a TV? A
phone? A refrigerator? Your guess is as good as mine ...
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:43:51 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <20100907134357.0DEF45454@mailout.easydns.com>
On 6 Sep 2010 04:23:48 +0000. Garrett Wollman wrote,
> >A good example is "1e100.net" which on the surface looks really
> >bogus.
>
>Until you realize just what number that is, and which takes its name
>from it.
A googol, of course. n: 1 followed by a hundred zeroes. Not to be
confused with google, v: to stare with wide-open eyes.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 The Telecom Digest (14 messages)
|
| |
or 