|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 235 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
my future telephones
Re: my future telephones
Re: my future telephones
Re: my future telephones
Re: Hacker-run GSM networks are coming
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Quote of the day - or maybe of the decade
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
====== 27 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: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:43:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: my future telephones
Message-ID: <200908250543.BAA11878@ss10.danlan.com>
For many years I've used classic Western Electric phones throughout my
house. Where I need multiple lines I have 2564 sets, though I do not
have any 1A2 support hardware. I really like the ergonomics and sound
quality [of] these phones.
Recently I've been installing VOIP. All of my lines are connected to
FXO ports and Asterisk replaces dedicated hardware including answering
machines, alarm dialers, CID boxes, etc. (adding flexibility in the
process, though probably reducing overall reliability). I have an
FXS port connected to a line button on a 2564 set and I am satisfied
with the voice quality for strictly internal purposes (all running
G.711u) including connecting to an outside POTS line.
Asterisk is happy to provide various features (transfer, park, etc.)
by inband DTMF signaling, but enabling such means that a call is no
longer transparent and accessing interactive voice response systems
becomes a problem. There may be ways to do things with hook flashes
but feature buttons would be better.
Is there any chance of finding a VOIP feature phone with quality
comparable to my WE sets? All the ones I've tried in offices have
been disappointing, but then so have most of the "modern" pre-VOIP
office phones.
One possibility is to build an adapter to take advantage of the
buttons on the 2564 and make it into a VOIP phone. Building the
audio part is more than I can do, so unless there is an open source
POTS/VOIP FXS adapter I would have to use an existing one in
conjunction with an entirely separate interface between the lights/
buttons and Asterisk. It would be really cool to have a little
box with a 50-pin Amphenol connector and an RJ45 that turns a
2564 into a VOIP feature phone, but I suspect the market isn't
huge. :(
Dan Lanciani
dd1@danlan.*com
****** Moderator's Note *****
Please explain what "G.711u" means, and why you chose that option. I'd
also appreciate you telling us how much it cost.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:47:24 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: my future telephones
Message-ID: <4A9431BC.1070506@thadlabs.com>
> [...]
> ****** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Please explain what "G.711u" means,
Per <http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/ITU+G.711>:
ITU G.711
G.711 is a high bit rate (64 Kbps) ITU standard codec. It is the
native language of the modern digital telephone network.
Although formally standardised in 1988, the G.711 PCM codec is
the granddaddy of digital telephony. Invented by Bell Systems and
introduced in the early 70's, the T1 digital trunk employed an
8-bit uncompressed Pulse Code Modulation encoding scheme with a
sample rate of 8000 samples per second. This allowed for
a (theoretical) maximum voice bandwith of 4000 Hz. A T1 trunk
carries 24 digital PCM channels multiplexed together. The
improved European E1 standard carries 30 channels.
There are two versions: A-law and µ-law. µ-law is indigenous to
the T1 standard used in North America and Japan. The A-law is
indigenous to the E1 standard used in the rest of the world. The
difference is in the method the analog signal being sampled. In
both schemes, the signal is not sampled linearly, but in a
logarithmic fashion. A-law provides more dynamic range as opposed
to µ-law. The result is a less 'fuzzy' sound as sampling
artifacts are better supressed.
Using G.711 for VoIP will give the best voice quality since it
uses no compression and it is the same codec used by the PSTN
network and ISDN lines, it sounds just like using a regular or
ISDN phone. It also has the lowest latency (lag) because there is
no need for compression, which costs processing power. The
downside is that it takes more bandwidth then other codecs, up to
84 Kbps including all TCP/IP overhead. However, with increasing
broadband bandwith, this should not be a problem.
G.711 is supported by most VoIP providers.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:44:46 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: my future telephones
Message-ID: <MPG.24fe1745e01f481b989b60@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <200908250543.BAA11878@ss10.danlan.com>, ddl@danlan.com
says...
>
> For many years I've used classic Western Electric phones throughout my
> house. Where I need multiple lines I have 2564 sets, though I do not
> have any 1A2 support hardware. I really like the ergonomics and sound
> quality [of] these phones.
>
> Recently I've been installing VOIP. All of my lines are connected to
> FXO ports and Asterisk replaces dedicated hardware including answering
> machines, alarm dialers, CID boxes, etc. (adding flexibility in the
> process, though probably reducing overall reliability). I have an
> FXS port connected to a line button on a 2564 set and I am satisfied
> with the voice quality for strictly internal purposes (all running
> G.711u) including connecting to an outside POTS line.
>
> Asterisk is happy to provide various features (transfer, park, etc.)
> by inband DTMF signaling, but enabling such means that a call is no
> longer transparent and accessing interactive voice response systems
> becomes a problem. There may be ways to do things with hook flashes
> but feature buttons would be better.
>
> Is there any chance of finding a VOIP feature phone with quality
> comparable to my WE sets? All the ones I've tried in offices have
> been disappointing, but then so have most of the "modern" pre-VOIP
> office phones.
>
> One possibility is to build an adapter to take advantage of the
> buttons on the 2564 and make it into a VOIP phone. Building the
> audio part is more than I can do, so unless there is an open source
> POTS/VOIP FXS adapter I would have to use an existing one in
> conjunction with an entirely separate interface between the lights/
> buttons and Asterisk. It would be really cool to have a little
> box with a 50-pin Amphenol connector and an RJ45 that turns a
> 2564 into a VOIP feature phone, but I suspect the market isn't
> huge. :(
>
> Dan Lanciani
> ddl@danlan.*com
>
> ****** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Please explain what "G.711u" means, and why you chose that option. I'd
> also appreciate you telling us how much it cost.
>
> Bill Horne
>From Wikipedia:
G.711 is an ITU-T standard for audio companding. It is primarily used in
telephony. The standard was released for usage in 1972. Its formal name
is Pulse code modulation (PCM) of voice frequencies. It is required
standard in many technologies, for example in H.320 and H.323
specifications. It can be also used in one of methods for fax
communication over IP networks (as defined in T.38 specification).
G.711 represents logarithmic pulse-code modulation (PCM) samples for
signals of voice frequencies, sampled at the rate of 8000
samples/second.
G.711.1 is an extension to G.711, published as ITU-T Recommendation
G.711.1 in March 2008. Its formal name is Wideband embedded extension
for G.711 pulse code modulation.[1]
G.711, also known as Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), is a very commonly
used waveform codec. G.711 uses a sampling rate of 8,000 samples per
second, with the tolerance on that rate 50 parts per million (ppm). Non-
uniform quantization (logarithmic) with 8 bits is used to represent each
sample, resulting in a 64 kbit/s bit rate. There are two slightly
different versions; µ-law, which is used primarily in North America, and
A-law, which is in use in most other countries outside North America.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:11:54 GMT
From: Howard Eisenhauer <howarde@REMOVECAPShfx.eastlink.ca>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: my future telephones
Message-ID: <ipn8959mh27qodur531d6ha2e9fu4353cc@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:26:58 -0400 (EDT), T
<kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
*Snip*
>G.711, also known as Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), is a very commonly
>used waveform codec. G.711 uses a sampling rate of 8,000 samples per
>second, with the tolerance on that rate 50 parts per million (ppm). Non-
>uniform quantization (logarithmic) with 8 bits is used to represent each
>sample, resulting in a 64 kbit/s bit rate. There are two slightly
>different versions; µ-law, which is used primarily in North America, and
>A-law, which is in use in most other countries outside North America.
I used to work on an Ericsson switch. After it had been in service
for 6 months or so someone figured out that the codecs had been set to
a-law instead of µ-law (this was a North American market). I had to
show up on site during the maintenance window while a switch engineer
made the change. Immediately after the change was ordered he called
me up & asked how he sounded, I'll be damned if I could hear any
difference between the two. :\
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Hacker-run GSM networks are coming
Message-ID: <h70rc4$2tj$6@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in <4A88B360.7020506@thadlabs.com>:
> Independent researchers are increasingly examining GSM
> networks and equipment, Welte's work proves that GSM is
> in the realm of the hackers now and that this realm of
> mobile networking could be set for a few surprises in
> the future.
> [ We need to keep an eye on this; "a few surprises" could mean
> many different things :-) ]
Things like:
"The Chaos Computer Club has told the FT that in the couple of months it
will be releasing code capable of cracking GSM with just a laptop and an
antenna.
In comments made to the German edition of the Financial Times, the hacking
group claims that governments, and criminals, are already using the
technique which can break the encryption used to protect 2G GSM calls in
near-real time using existing systems. The group says a public exposure of
the technique will take place in the next month or two and allow anyone
equipped with a laptop and an antenna to listen in to GSM phone calls."
>From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/gsm_cracked/
Koos van den Hout
--
Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl or RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5
Weather maps from free sources at
http://idefix.net/~koos/ http://weather.idefix.net/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:19:08 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <4A93C8AC.3070105@annsgarden.com>
I wrote:
>> Except that NPA 702 only covers Clark County. Lincoln and Ney
>> Counties (including Town of Pahrump) are also "local" to (same DMA
>> as) Las Vegas, but they're in NPA 775.
Richard wrote:
> Approximate populations:
> Lincoln County: 4,000
> Nye County: 44,375
> Clark County 2,000,000
>
> Clark County contains about 97% of their audience. No point in
> wasting air time with an area code.
Acknowledged. Still, I'm surprised that the station's management didn't
insist on including the entire DMA's audience. In the broadcast
business, advertising rates are based on TV homes in the entire DMA, not
just homes in the county of license.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:20:26 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill.remove@horne.remove.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Quote of the day - or maybe of the decade
Message-ID: <4A94559A.6050604@horne.net>
The following is excerpted from a court finding which is published at
http://www.raptorware.com/drudge/51%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Motion%20for%20Summary%20Judgment.pdf
"Neither party in this case has acted like mature adults should
act. Nor is either party in this case blameless for turning this into
a federal case when it never should have been litigated in the first
place."
It seems the courts are running out of patience with a certain kind of
lawsuit: actions which question attempts by school bureaucrats to
implement electronic surveilance technology so as to avoid spending
money for adequate staff levels.
This lawsuit is relevant to telecom because it's about an technology
which will become increasingly common until it is ubiquitous: the
electronic verification of identity coupled with instant retrieval of
every fact, factoid, or rumor in any database in the world. Get ready
for the future, because within our lifetime, every imigration agent,
border patrolman, visa office, merchant, employer, banker, and
politician in the developed world will have at their fingertips
anything and everything you'd rather keep private.
Bill Horne
--
E. William Horne
William Warren Consulting
Computer & Network Installations, Security, and Service
http://william-warren.com
781-784-7287
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/x-vcard
---
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <be9f07cd-b674-4ad5-88b1-f93b0410cdb1@y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 23, 2:19 pm, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
>
> By Saul Hansell
> August 20, 2009, 1:20 pm
>
> The world's savviest hackers are on to the "real-time Web" and using
> it to devilish effect. The real-time Web is the fire hose of
> information coming from services like Twitter. The latest generation
> of Trojans - nasty little programs that hacking gangs use to burrow
> onto your computer - sends a Twitter-like stream of updates about
> everything you do back to their controllers, many of whom,
> researchers say, are in Eastern Europe. Trojans used to just
> accumulate secret diaries of your Web surfing and periodically sent
> the results on to the hacker.
[Moderator snip]
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/how-hackers-snatch-real-time...
This is one of the most worthwhile articles on the subject.
Also worthwhile to follow some of the links.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:19:52 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.25.23.19.51.104877@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:39:43 -0400, www.Queensbridge.us wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:19Â pm, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>> How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
>>
>> By Saul Hansell
>> August 20, 2009, 1:20 pm
>>
>> The world's savviest hackers are on to the "real-time Web" and using it
>> to devilish effect. The real-time Web is the fire hose of information
>> coming from services like Twitter. The latest generation of Trojans -
>> nasty little programs that hacking gangs use to burrow onto your
>> computer - sends a Twitter-like stream of updates about everything you
>> do back to their controllers, many of whom, researchers say, are in
>> Eastern Europe. Trojans used to just accumulate secret diaries of your
>> Web surfing and periodically sent the results on to the hacker.
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/how-hackers-snatch-real-time...
>
> This is one of the most worthwhile articles on the subject. Also
> worthwhile to follow some of the links.
And isn't it great that few - if any - of these news articles mention that
almost all (or all?) of these threats are Windows based?
Is it about time that every single news article on Internet/Computer
security threats has a disclaimer along the lines of:
"If you want to avoid 95% of the threats to your computer, don't use
Windows and Internet Explorer"
--
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 *****
A disclaimer almost identical to that has been routine for years, and
I'm surpris ... oh, wait, you're using a Windows OS. Never mind.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <39538d97-2d7d-43bf-bd4b-bc9778c5d653@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 25, 9:15 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> "If you want to avoid 95% of the threats to your computer, don't use
> Windows and Internet Explorer"
Hackers focus on those platforms because they are the majority in
use. If another platform replaced them, that platform would be the
target.
In my humble opinion, the highly automated start features of today's
platforms make it easy for these viruses to do their work. The above
article mentioned, "the Trojan allows the hacker to control your
computer, opening a browser session that you can't see". Why should
a browser session be _automatically_ opened, and why couldn't it be
seen?
Is it so onerous for a user to manually open up his own windows? To
have all sessions visible?
Another issue that needs discussion is the wide open connections to
eastern Europe, where apparently a great deal of trouble originates.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Lisa, I'm not sure you're able to have a humble opinion. ;-)
Seriously, I think the reporter was probably using "browser session"
as a metaphor for the various rootkits that hackers like to
use. Although Windows 2000 and later version are capable of supporting
a web server, it's much easier to hack a machine with a rootkit which
can be remotely controlled via custom software instead of via a web
browser.
BTW, the user can't see the "browser session" because that's what
rootkits are for: to hide administrator-level access from the user,
from AV software, and from the rest of the OS. It's not something a
user can control once the machine is infected, onerous though it may
be.
As for Eastern Europe, the very first Internet hacker, Marcus Hess,
the antagonist of Cliff Stoll's famous book "The Cuckoo's Egg", was
operating from Bremen in Germany.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:35:43 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.26.04.35.41.934859@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:56:44 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> On Aug 25, 9:15Â pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> "If you want to avoid 95% of the threats to your computer, don't use
>> Windows and Internet Explorer"
>
> Hackers focus on those platforms because they are the majority in use. If
> another platform replaced them, that platform would be the target.
.........
Maybe, but they also focus on them because they are far (FAR) more
vulnerable to attacks because of deliberate design features that make
things "user friendly" by allowing the user to be bypassed in too many
critical areas.
Having an environment marketed to computer illiterate people where code
can be installed and run either without user knowledge or by just
prompting with a "I'm a nice, fluffy ActiveX application, click OK to
install me" is not just negligent, it is borderline criminal.
--
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 *****
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (Richard Feynman)
Computers had to be simple before they could be sold. Americans aren't
really very technical, and we always demand simplicity and ease of use
from any inventor: anti-virus and anti-spyware programs came later
because viruses and spyware came later.
The first and most important survival trait of any business is the
ability to generate the cash flow essential to growth. To do that,
Microsoft concentrated on "Wow!" and told the security weenies that
they had to wait. Once on that road, of course, they couldn't turn
back, or even slow down: "market share" has always been the yardstick
by which software firms are measured, and Microsoft is too busy trying
to stay in front to worry about what is, in their mind, a
public-relations matter.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:16:35 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <4A94C533.2010105@thadlabs.com>
On 8/25/2009 8:56 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 25, 9:15 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> "If you want to avoid 95% of the threats to your computer, don't use
>> Windows and Internet Explorer"
>
> Hackers focus on those platforms because they are the majority in
> use. If another platform replaced them, that platform would be the
> target.
It appears Macs have attracted the criminals' interest -- the new
Snow Leopard release from Apple this coming Friday (Aug. 28) will
have anti-virus/-malware software built in. Screen shot here:
<http://blog.intego.com/2009/08/25/snow-leopard-contains-an-antivirus/>
FWIW, IE is the most non-compliant and buggy browser in existence today,
even the latest IE8 passes only 20% of the Web Standards browser suite.
Two compliant and good browsers for use on Windows systems are Opera
and Apple's Safari, both of which 100% pass the Web Standards suite:
<http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3>
Download: <http://www.opera.com/download/>
Download: <http://www.apple.com/safari/download/>
> [...]
> Another issue that needs discussion is the wide open connections to
> eastern Europe, where apparently a great deal of trouble originates.
Add Vietnam, South Korea and China to the list. Note, however, that
many of the newer IFRAME exploits (really, really nasty on infected
web sites) which appear to originate from China are, in fact, sites of
the Russian Business Network (a criminal hacker group) in the Russian
Federation and in Latvia.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:19:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <h72gk8$id5$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <39538d97-2d7d-43bf-bd4b-bc9778c5d653@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>On Aug 25, 9:15 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> "If you want to avoid 95% of the threats to your computer, don't use
>> Windows and Internet Explorer"
>Hackers focus on those platforms because they are the majority in
>use. If another platform replaced them, that platform would be the
>target.
It's really about time that people proposing this concept
just stop a second and think before putting ink to paper.
Or electrons to a screen.
By this rationale, no one with an Audi should be able to find
parts for their car.
Somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of computers hooked
up to the internet are Apples. Just about none of them
have any sort of third party anti virus protection running.
That's a pretty decent number of completely vulnerable
systems, eh?
On the other hand, perhaps two thirds of Windows based
systems hooked up to the internet have some added
protection of this sort. (Keep in mind that the situation
is so bad that... many internet providers include
these features as part of their internet connectivity
suite of programs).
This raises the proportion of "vulnerable", so to speak,
computers on the Apple side quite a bit. And with
such a virgin target, lots of Bad FOlk should be
trying to exploit them.
Yet we still don't see a single mass attack virus [a]
against them.
Why? Because there's no there, there. The operating
systems and the various built-in designs make it
a lot harder to take over.
[a] that's not to say it's completely impossible, but
it takes active confirmation, including entering
the system password, before an outside program can
do anything really ugly to a Mac. Yes, you can go
to a web page that will try dl'ing something extremely
nasty, but yo've got to then approve its actions
before anything ugly will happen.
As an analogy it's as if someone mailed out diskettes
to a thousand people and attached a cover letter
telling them it was a brand new way to Make Money Fast.
Ninety nine percent would throw it out. Yes, a small
number, though, would run it.
So yes, you can have a Mac virus. But it ain't going
to go very far.
--
_____________________________________________________
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 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 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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 (13 messages)
******************************
|
or 