Bob George wrote:

> How are you going to send data with this arrangement?

I dunno yet, kinda expect someone will tell me how he's already done it.
That chances that I mite stumble across something really useful that has
not already been done seems kinda remote.

I dunno who National Semiconductor expected to sell their boards to. I
didnt see where the data that the board collected, actually was ported
to the ISA bus.  But one of the charts showed that one of the lines
multiplexed two 12bit data streams, so the sound card comes to mind.
Stereo. And it seemed that the com port (which we see dial up modems do
4.3kb/second) could be used to adjust the transmit/receive frequencies
by .05mhz in a spread spectrum fashion that'd make detection, much less
interference, really unlikely in a wireless application. Since it only
takes few bytes to change the setting, it could change the tuned signals
a thousand times a second. Scanners would never see it. They seem to be
proud of their AGC capabilties, and if this is what they mean, they
should be.

IIRC, a chart showed 3 more lines besides the multiplexed one, and could
use the others to look for noise free frequencies from 300 or whatever
mhz on down to DC. The board seemed to be the size of a credit card,
with only a few chips; prolly sell for less than 10$. Aint nearly as
complex as a cell phone. Seems to make sense that if you have a fixed
desktop, you could run a coax to an outside antenna, and have at least
the range of a cell phone for about the same money.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Day Brown wrote:

> And this kernel is without a GUI interface?

I think the X server - whether that be the full-blown Xwindows or
something smaller like Xvesa - is something totally separate from the
kernel.

> What'd be neat, an could prolly be done in less than 10k of assy, would
> be for the kernel to understand the dos command set, so that it wouldnt
> bitch on the CLI if you forgot which OS you were running. Be nice if it

The "alias" command is usually used for this, e.g., alias dir='ls -a'.
The command is built into the shell - typically bash.  ~/.bashrc is where
such aliases can be made a feature of the user's shell environment.

> I find the whole idea of a tiny kernel interesting, but full of
> questions. Tiny means fast dont it? 16 bit?

The full size 2.6.x kernel is noticeably faster on my newer machine -
despite being noticeably larger - than the 2.4.x kernels on that same
machine.  The latter are a little under 1MB, the former a little over 1MB.
Having never used the tiny kernel, I can't say how much faster it might be
than a comparably sized earlier kernel.  But it would be interesting to
know.

James

Day Brown wrote:

> [...] And this kernel is without a GUI interface?

The kernel has NO interface. That's the function of other programs, such
as the shell (CLI) or X. The only function of the kernel is to control
the other programs (user, system and drivers.)

> But to judge by the driver install menus, with ANSI color.

Depending on who's putting together a system (distribution), they may
elect to use menus or not for installs. But again, that's not the kernel!

> Why do you need Linux on a SURVPC other than to run a PPP driver and
> browser?

Because it's VERY WELL suited to what (today) passes for Surv-class
hardware. Older distributions can work, but the article pointed out that
the new kernel is as small as a VERY old kernel. And the new kernel
provides many enhanced new capabilities. So smaller and enhanced... why
NOT? Take an old PC, bring it up to date in terms of capabilities, and
one of the last arguments to throw it out goes away.

> I dont think of folks trying to run a network with a SURVPC;

Many do! I knew quite a few folks who used a 386 with Linux as a
firewall and home server just fine. While an old kernel may be asking
for trouble for such a device, a new (equally small) kernel should be as
robust as any other modern configuration.

> I expect folks want to continue to run text editors and small
> business database tools, like what they've been doing in DOS. So...
> how do the Linux tools stack up on a SURVPC with the DOS-OS/2 tools
> folks have been using?

Perhaps they have an ISP that requires PPP options not available under
DOS or OS/2? Or they want spam filtering capabilities not available
under either? If an old PC can be made to run current software, it makes
a GREAT surv-gateway along the lines of what's been discussed on this
list many times! Use the "high horsepower" machine for DOS, windows or
whatever old software you love, while using a small, fast and modern
Linux on the "old" box to talk to that ISP or do other things your
beloved stuff can't.

Not to mention that there a lot of people who'd love to run Linux but
simply don't have the appropriate hardware. This may be a good solution
for them. Not everybody with an old PC is necessarily unwilling to
replace DOS with Linux.

> What'd be neat, an could prolly be done in less than 10k of assy,
> would be for the kernel to understand the dos command set, so that it
>  wouldnt bitch on the CLI if you forgot which OS you were running.

That shouldn't be in the kernel, but it COULD be done easily
enough as a shell to replace sh/bash/ksh if desired. Keep in mind, such
a shell will probably need to call OTHER programs to be useful, just as
COMMAND.COM does under DOS.

If you'll recall, a while back, I mentioned the lsh shell, which is
described thusly: "Lsh is especially useful for users who have had some
DOS experience and are now supposed to do something under UNIX. This
shell will ease the transition and make the usage of dialup services
extremely easy for them."

That package weighs in at about 40K (although it does use other
libraries) but could no doubt be trimmed back. Then again, someone has
to have the drive and incentive to do that, so it would be a great "do
it yourself" project.

> Be nice if it had a BATCH compiler also. For the kind of stuff I do
> on my own desktop, curses is like using a yacht to go trout fishing.
>  It's too big, too fast, and cant get in the kind of backwaters I
> like to fish in.

Uhm, curses has nothing to do with scripts or batch files! More like
using a locomotive to go trout fishing!

> Is there a Linux tool which can convert DOS binaries to run on the
> Linux CLI?

Two things come to mind:

1. DOSemu to run dos under dos.

2. A shell or scripts to make underlying commands look like DOS
equivalents. You'd have to be more specific about WHICH DOS programs you
want though. Some will have no equivalents.

> Is there a Linux verion of Ralf Brown?

Assuming you mean the interrupt list (and not that there's a DOS program
called Ralf Brown -- which supports my troll perl script theory -- there
are certainly documents covering system calls, yes. Those are typically
done by means of a library, but you COULD code up your own. Just as
Ralf's list alone doesn't DO anything on DOS, a list of calls doesn't
either.

> Or is the whole 9 yards in C?

Much of the kernel source is, yes. But you can CALL it from other languages.

> And where do the routines C calls come from?

The system libraries typically. Or add-on libraries that the developer
creates (if nothing suitable pre-exists.)

> I find the whole idea of a tiny kernel interesting, but full of
> questions. Tiny means fast dont it? 16 bit?

Fast, yes. As to 16 bit, I think just the opposite. From:
http://www.selenic.com/tiny-about/Reprint-Mackall-OLS2004.pdf

"4.2 Optional interfaces For systems with well-defined application
requirements, many of the kernel’s APIs are unnecessary. Cutting-edge,
obsolete, or obscure features are obvious candidates for con-
figurable removal.
[...]
uid16, vm86: Some of the many legacy interfaces in the kernel. Modern
applications and libraries use 32-bit user and group IDs and vm86
support is used to run 16-bit code for emulators like DOSEMU
and Wine and for some video drivers used by X."

So it sounds like it's being made smaller partly by REMOVING 16 bit
(legacy) interfaces. My understanding is that it'll be ONLY "current"
software compatible.

Seeing as how this list is for "Older PCs" and NOT only DOS, I think
this is a great alternative! I hope development proceeds quickly, as I'd
like to give it a shot. Nice catch, James!

- Bob

Day Brown wrote:

> Bob George wrote:
>> How are you going to send data with this arrangement?
>
> I dunno yet, kinda expect someone will tell me how he's already done
>  it.

So YOU'RE not doing this then?

> That chances that I mite stumble across something really useful that
>  has not already been done seems kinda remote.

Actually, I don't agree. I keep bouncing responses back because I
assume you are thinking about TRYING such a thing. I've been assuming
you were doing something, but perhaps hadn't considered some aspect or
another.

> I dunno who National Semiconductor expected to sell their boards to.

RF guys! :) Most CPU eval boards don't "do much" but an engineer can
make them do something interesting for testing. However, that's usually
as a proof of concept only, not a working unit.

> I didnt see where the data that the board collected, actually was
> ported to the ISA bus.

Do you have the full link to the data sheets? The link provided didn't
show anything. I'm curious to see what this is.

> But one of the charts showed that one of the lines multiplexed two
> 12bit data streams, so the sound card comes to mind.

The 12 bits has potential (though I need to see that sheet) but: Aren't
you trying to send DATA? If the board already multiplexes two 12 bit
(digital) streams, you don't need to do any additional analog-digital
conversion! It's DONE already! You just need to do something useful with
that data once you receive it at the other end.

> Stereo.

Or are you trying to send a digitized audio stream?
Voice-over-IP-over-Radio?

> And it seemed that the com port (which we see dial up modems do
> 4.3kb/second)

But again... it's already taking a 12 bit stream, no? Does the board let
you feed that via that com port, or is there some other data input? Your
description has me thinking that's for control only, and NOT data to be
sent.

> could be used to adjust the transmit/receive frequencies by .05mhz in
>  a spread spectrum fashion that'd make detection, much less
> interference, really unlikely in a wireless application.

Well, sure but there's a problem. Someone has to RECEIVE that. Using a
TV analogy, an appropriately equipped TV station could send snippets of
over randomly changing channels. But if the receivers don't know what
channel to turn to, they'll be lucky to catch the odd image.

The "trick" of spread spectrum is in doing so IN A PREDICTABLE PATTERN.
For any roll-your-own solution, you'd need to answer that puzzle. You
could of course use the existing spread spectrum technologies adapted to
other spectrum, but I suspect you'll find why it wasn't done using lower
ranges. Your "chips" over a smaller range of frequencies for longer
periods to transmit any data might not scale very well.

> Since it only takes few bytes to change the setting, it could change
> the tuned signals a thousand times a second.

A possible problem with lower data rate/frequencies?

> Scanners would never see it.

Spread spectrum isn't hard to spot. To be useful, it has to be
detectable! Of course, they may not CARE to.

> They seem to be proud of their AGC capabilties, and if this is what
> they mean, they should be.

Since what you're describing doesn't exist, I doubt it is, and I doubt
they are!

> IIRC, a chart showed 3 more lines besides the multiplexed one, and
> could use the others to look for noise free frequencies from 300 or
> whatever mhz on down to DC.

If they're digital input lines, how so? I'm not sure what you mean here.

> The board seemed to be the size of a credit card, with only a few
> chips; prolly sell for less than 10$.

In QUANTITY (i.e. > 1,000) perhaps so. I'd be very surprised if they
were that inexpensive in low quantities.

> Aint nearly as complex as a cell phone.

Probably don't do near as much either!

> Seems to make sense that if you have a fixed desktop, you could run a
> coax to an outside antenna, and have at least the range of a cell
> phone for about the same money.

So for the same money, what problem have you solved? Keeping in mind
that the actual range of a cell phone is very limited (as opposed to the
reach of the network it relies on) that's not much to brag about for an
overly complicated system!

I fail to see what this gains you that existing ham solutions don't. As
a pure "hack factor", sure it's *interesting*. I once toyed with the
idea of using the old, unused central intercom wire pairs strung
throughout my (former) home as a crude data solution to network the
house. I figured I could probably adapt something to let low-speed
serial work over the speaker-type wire. BUT I realized it was something
that would only be of use to me, would cost WAY more than was really
necessary, and of course, it was completely obsolete by the time I was
anywhere near ready to go with it.

So if you're "Day"-dreaming, sure such things CAN be done. But I don't
think there's a short-term solution to your data needs on the horizon.

Now, part of my annoyance with you recently has been due to thinking you
were really looking for answers, and not just "thinking via keyboard."
Taking a MORE SERIOUS approach to your basic challenge:

"How can I inexpensively send data to a neighbor located approx. 10
miles away with no direct line-of-sight?" and adding my own requirement
for "legally and practially"...

I've googled a bit, and I'm wondering if MURS may be what you need.
Taking a look at:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio2.html, I see:

> The authorized bandwidth is 11.25 kHz on frequencies 151.820 MHz,
> 151.880 MHz and 151.940 MHz. The authorized bandwidth is 12.5 kHz on
> frequencies 154.570 and 154.600 kHz. [...] 1) You can transmit data
> and imagery! 2) VHF is better for hooking up external antennas(less
> feedline loss). 3) No license is required!

Also, check out: http://www.guerrilla.net/reference/murs/murs.html

> What makes this interesting is the possibility of using soundmodem
> based utilities originally developed for ham radio use on the MURS
> frequencies, for inexpensive data links over distances far in excess
> of 802.11's capabilities. Unlike the ham bands, there will be no
> restrictions on cryptography or transmission of commercial content.
> While speeds are slow (9600 bps with soundcard based utilities,
> higher speeds available with hardware solutions), we feel that this
> is sufficient for many uses.

So, what you're alluding to (complete with soundcard) IS doable WITH
LEGAL FREQUENCIES, and products DO exist. Now, that IS slow stuff, but
9.6K can send a fair amount of email give a bit of extra time (recalling
when 14.4Kbps was "HIGH SPEED") and if adding new techniques such as
compression etc. then presumably effective rates could be higher.

Day: If you're at all serious about this project, I'd suggest checking
those pages for starting points. It sounds like you can (legally!) use
existing, relatively low cost equipment to set up a point-to-point link
to your neighbor with the high-speed Internet access, then set up
communications between your house and his (hers?).

Again, I don't use this stuff, so I'm not sure it's full-duplex
(anyone?) If so, you can probably use existing software such as PPP
together with a "modem" to transmit/receive. This may be IDEAL for what
you've said you'd want: Namely the ability to send email back and forth
to that neighbor. Two radios (plus antennas, towers as necessary) and a
couple of old PCs, and I think you'd be in business!

Now, I'm no ham nor communications expert, and there are some
restrictions on use:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/personal/murs/operations/

However, the basic challenge has been answered it seems.

If you're just looking to "plug the computer into a radio", you need to
solve the issue of channel contention/media access control. This was the
basis for the precursor to ethernet: alohanet, which ran amongst the
hawaiian islands. Another possibility would be to use SIMPLEX radios on
different bands, still requiring some sort of coordination among them.

Now, lest your rebel tendencies make you want to go stomp all over the
FCC regulations and other legitimate users of these bands, take a look
at: http://www.popularwireless.com/gmrsrhodeisland.html -- the story of
how a pissed of citizen decided to hunt down a pirate user. While it's a
different band with licensing, abuses CAN be hunted down by annoyed users.

OK, so what you want to do CAN be done. I guess my question now is: Do
you really WANT to do anything?

- Bob

One more tidbit: Check out http://www.symek.com/g/pacinfo.html

It describes TNC "Packet Radio Converters" which connect to your PC via
serial, then send that data via wireless.

You are passing DATA to the TNC. Your PC is NOT doing the conversion to
analog. Any serial device can talk using these apparently.

- Bob

I was doing some follow-up investigation of VoIP from several public
safety related discussion lists I receive. I ended up with the
following lists that refer to VoIP.

Thought someone might find these interesting ...

John Oram



Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-clec/archives/
not specific to VoIP but a lot of threads are about VoIP

Voice over IP Forum  http://www.voice-over-ip-forum.com/

VoIPOnline  http://www.voiponline.com/forums/

VoIP Calculator  http://www.voip-calculator.com/forum/voip

DSL Reports  http://www.dslreports.com/forum/voip

TIA B2B  http://www.tiab2b.com/forum/threads.cfm

TMC Net  http://voip-forum.tmcnet.com/voip-forum/forum/

The VOIP Wiki - a reference guide to all things VOIP
http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php

Open Source VOIP Software  http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-SIPfoundry

cisco-voip Archives  https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/


INS NetKnowledge webinars on VoIP
http://www.ins.com/knowledge/webseminar_archives.asp

http://www.voipwatch.com/links.php3

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Bob George wrote:

> Day Brown wrote:
>
> > I dont think of folks trying to run a network with a SURVPC;
>
> Many do! I knew quite a few folks who used a 386 with Linux as a
> firewall and home server just fine. While an old kernel may be asking
> for trouble for such a device, a new (equally small) kernel should be as
> robust as any other modern configuration.
>
> > I expect folks want to continue to run text editors and small
> > business database tools, like what they've been doing in DOS. So...
> > how do the Linux tools stack up on a SURVPC with the DOS-OS/2 tools
> > folks have been using?
>
> Perhaps they have an ISP that requires PPP options not available under
> DOS or OS/2? Or they want spam filtering capabilities not available
> under either? If an old PC can be made to run current software, it makes
> a GREAT surv-gateway along the lines of what's been discussed on this
> list many times! Use the "high horsepower" machine for DOS, windows or
> whatever old software you love, while using a small, fast and modern
> Linux on the "old" box to talk to that ISP or do other things your
> beloved stuff can't.
>
> Not to mention that there a lot of people who'd love to run Linux but
> simply don't have the appropriate hardware. This may be a good solution
> for them. Not everybody with an old PC is necessarily unwilling to
> replace DOS with Linux.

There's also the newest of the old to answer to such needs.  Older Linux
kernels of the 2.x branch are still being developed.  Freesco - the
router/firewall I use - has recently come out with a new release based on
the latest 2.0.x kernel - 2.0.40.  I am still using the previous release,
that uses the 2.0.39 kernel, but plan on upgrading in the next few
months.  The system is rock solid and secure: last reboot was in April.
Here's an excerpt from the Freesco site on the new release: "Boot speed
has been improved dramaticly, so that 033 can run effectively on a 386 as
well as much quicker on any speed CPU. Shutdown speed has been increased
to around 5 to 10 seconds on any speed CPU. Your mileage may vary."  My
Freesco runs on a hotrod PPro 180 with 24MB RAM and 64MB CF disk/HD.
Freesco had backed off a bit on the minimum system requirements for the
last 0.3.2 release (which were previously: 386 DX with 6MB RAM), but it
looks like the 0.3.3 release could run on such a system.  It also needs to
be noted that, since Freesco is now undergoing very active development,
many add-on packages are being compiled for it against the 2.0.x kernels:
Apache, sendmail, Squid, ssh, vpn stuff, php - etc, etc.  Networking for
survpc's?  Looks like from 386 DX on up Freesco does about anything you'd
need.

James

I recently posed the following to members of the g-list (Apple Mac G machines)
and I would also be interested in any ideas this list might have. I was thinking
something along the lines of using a PC as a bridge between the upstairs and
downstairs networks...

I have been thinking about this for awhile and I think the time has come to
finally decide how best to handle this situation.  I have a computer room
downstairs, populated mostly with PC's, including my primary file server
system.  Also in this room is where my cable modem and Dlink wap/router are
located, as well as a 16 port 10 mbit ethernet hub.  Most of my network is
wired, including this B&W G3 here in my bedroom, but I also have a couple of
notebooks which I use naturally with the wireless portion of the network.
Everything works fairly well, I can access the internet from all the
machines and for the most part the PC's peacefully co-exist with my Macs for
now.  Here is where the monkey wrench gets thrown in for good measure, I
want to establish a second base of operation upstairs to be comprised mostly
of my Macintosh hardware collection consisting of a couple of beige G3s, a
PM 7200, Quadra 700 and a couple of LC IIIs.  Now all of my computers have
ethernet capabilities so I want to stick with that for tying them all
together, so my question is, what is the best way to do this.  It seems to
me some sort of wireless access upstairs and perhaps a second hub would be
the logical way to go, but I am open for suggestions.  I would prefer to
keep the costs to a minimum as I already have a substantial investment with
the various systems I have accumulated.  Many TIA for any help provided.

Just a message from Doug...

GDB-Dell-WinME wrote:

>  [...] Here is where the monkey wrench gets thrown in for good
>  measure, I want to establish a second base of operation upstairs to
>  be comprised mostly of my Macintosh hardware collection consisting of
>  a couple of beige G3s, a PM 7200, Quadra 700 and a couple of LC IIIs.
>  Now all of my computers have ethernet capabilities so I want to stick
>  with that for tying them all together, so my question is, what is the
>  best way to do this. It seems to me some sort of wireless access
>  upstairs and perhaps a second hub would be the logical way to go, but
>  I am open for suggestions.

You're probaly after a wireless bridge to connect a hub/switch upstairs
to that downstairs. You want two wired segments connected by a wireless
link. Unfortunately, these capabilities vary widely among manufacturers,
so check the DLink product documentation to see if it supports a
'bridged' configuration. Buffalo is very good about such features.
Others less so.

If all your Macs are using TCP/IP transport, it should be quite
transparent to them.

>  I would prefer to keep the costs to a minimum as I already have a
>  substantial investment with the various systems I have accumulated.
>  Many TIA for any help provided.

Worst case: A replacement WAP/router + bridge.

I've also considered using the AC powerline bridges for such
connections, but they seem to be falling out of favor.

Sounds like a fun project!

- Bob

On 2 Aug 2004 at 7:57, GDB-Dell-WinME wrote:
>I recently posed the following to members of the g-list (Apple Mac G machines)
and I would also be interested in any ideas this list might have. I was thinking
something along the lines of using a PC as a bridge between the upstairs and
downstairs networks...
>
>I have been thinking about this for awhile and I think the time has come to
>finally decide how best to handle this situation.  I have a computer room
>downstairs, populated mostly with PC's, including my primary file server
>system.  Also in this room is where my cable modem and Dlink wap/router are
>located, as well as a 16 port 10 mbit ethernet hub.  Most of my network is
>wired, including this B&W G3 here in my bedroom, but I also have a couple of
>notebooks which I use naturally with the wireless portion of the network.
>Everything works fairly well, I can access the internet from all the
>machines and for the most part the PC's peacefully co-exist with my Macs for
>now.  Here is where the monkey wrench gets thrown in for good measure, I
>want to establish a second base of operation upstairs to be comprised mostly
>of my Macintosh hardware collection consisting of a couple of beige G3s, a
>PM 7200, Quadra 700 and a couple of LC IIIs.  Now all of my computers have
>ethernet capabilities so I want to stick with that for tying them all
>together, so my question is, what is the best way to do this.  It seems to
>me some sort of wireless access upstairs and perhaps a second hub would be
>the logical way to go, but I am open for suggestions.  I would prefer to
>keep the costs to a minimum as I already have a substantial investment with
>the various systems I have accumulated.  Many TIA for any help provided.
>
>Just a message from Doug...

Minimum cost will probably be to set up an eight-port hub or switch in
your room with the Macintoshes, and then run a cable from the uplink
port of the hub or switch, downstairs to the 16-port hub.  This will
probably cost about US$150 for the hub and cabling.

Note that some of the older Macintoshes may not be able to get IP
addresses automatically from some DHCP/bootp servers - we've had off-
and-on problems with this everywhere I've worked.   Assigning and hard-
coding an address on the Mac works every time, though.

Hope this helps,
Anthony Albert

===========================================================
Anthony J. Albert                     albert@...
Systems and Software Support Specialist          Postmaster
Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle
         "This is only temporary, unless it works."
                         --- Red Green

Sorry this took so long. But when I tried to add another username at
another ISP the connection wizard crashed,  I lost internet access. But
I had other projects ongoing on the dos partition, like the
http://www.anzi@ozcomm.net webpage, where I hope to yet post some of the
design parameters and my own experimental results. So I didnt get a
round tuit till now. I dunno if I should bother sending a bug report.

I have built Yagi antennas on 12 foot booms at 33 foot masts that I know
can establish vox into the deepest canyons in my neck of Ozark woods. I
also used one of that scale, hooked up to the guts of a 50mhz cordless
telephone to go about a mile beyond normal range.... 250mw. And I've
used FM transmitter boards with ordinary electret mics tuned to 90mhz at
up to 2 watts that can go a mile or so... right thru the canopy in leaf
and around a 200 foot bluff face, that none of the commercially
available FCC approved designs can cope with. You can get the boards
with parts to solder on, not a whole lot more complex than Tinkertoy
directions, for 15$, or assembled FM transmitters for 25$.  Which, if
you value your time at all, is the way to go.

I havent tried a phone patch yet, or tried hooking the audio in/out to a
modem. But that dont seem like it'd be a biggie. If I can get the ANZI
website up, someone will prolly tell me what worked for them. One of my
friends is a ham who lives in Little Rock, who plans a trip up here, so
I let that sit on the back burner until she shows up here.

And I decided to front burner putting up an ANZI BBS running on dos. And
if I get the website up, I'll try to integrate the two of them.

We use two different ISPs here because, several weekends a year, an ISP
will crash friday afternoon, and not be back online until monday
morning. The rural customer base is too low to pay for tech help over
the weekends. I guess they like to spend time on trout streams like the
rest of us. Anyway, one or the other ISP is always working, and I should
be able to relay stuff from the BBS to the internet during an outage.

Then there's the matter of local culture, which has a large portion of
Armageddonites who think these are the last days, and another portion of
New Age 1st or 2nd generation Hippies, all of whom would be interested
in better local community organization in the event of a significant
terrorist attack. Not that the rural communities worry about being a
target, but worried about a mass of panicked rednecks coming up from
Little Rock or whereever. I dont know, maybe this election will be the
most important one ever. But that dont mean that the men best able to
cope with crisis will be elected.

So there's some indigeneous interest in a rural civil defense system and
a data communications system which does not depend on urban hubs to
function, at least for the local region. If there is a serious problem,
FCC regulations will be moot. And even if there is not, there remains
the problem rural folks have now with data, just as they have always had
with the telephone system. Even if a local communications service
operates within FCC regulations, that dont mean that it is *actually
operating*. We've seen a lotta dead lines and vaporware.

It aint *my* design we are really taking about here. Maybe it offends
your sense of order, but the fact is, that if the FCC regulatory
authorities dont get with the program permitting entrepeneurs to meet
the rural communications niche market, people will *ignore* the
regulations. Just as they did with CB radio. I am not debating the
merits of this, just pointing out the natural sociological evolution.
The cost of the hardware needed to use bandwidth is just too low, while
the dispersal of offenders across the landscape is too wide for the the
FCC to afford the costs of maintaining regulations.

Bob George wrote:

> Day Brown wrote:
>
>>  [...] Yes, there are Hams using packet. But even if just ascii email,
>>  I dont think that the bandwidth they now have would support nearly
>>  the numbers of email users.
>
>
> Why is data sent via wireless at low data rates over extended periods
> any less viable than the "5 minutes per day via long-distance" over
> 56Kbps (or less) modem speeds? True, you'd get more sent in 5 minutes
> (though I suspect THAT number is optimistic), but they'd have hours at
> no additional charge. Using compression and other (readily available)
> techniques, along with queueing of messages, and quite a bit flows in a
> short period.
>
>>  They are also into long-range continental communication, whereas the
>>  hardware needs of a local COOP ISP would be much more modest.
>
>
> The same technology works equally well at shorter distances, but of
> course at lower speeds, it'd be a less attractive option than local
> dial-up for example. So you'd use it to avoid tolls. Why's that a
> problem? Some users might connect via dial-up, others via ham radio, and
> others via fiber. IT STILL WORKS.
>
>>  And yes, there are the BBS people, and a communitarian effort to
>>  organize internet access.
>
>
> Not to mention the ham bbsen.
>
>>  [...] Your Kharma may vary. I tried that, but nothing ever installed
>>  properly on any of the distros I tried it on.
>
>
> While I have no doubt that you've encountered problems, that's a far cry
> from "it can't be done." Recognize your own limitations and attribute it
> to that. But please don't turn around and claim that such things can't
> be done without updating to a current distribution. You're apparently
> expecting a new distribution that will run on a 486 with low memory, and
> offer features comparable to those you'll get on a full-blown P4 or
> better. Not likely. BUT if your true goal is to get the most out of that
> older hardware, well then there are plenty of ways to get it done... IF
> YOU ARE WILLING TO EXPEND THE EFFORT.
>
>>  Like with document formats, there is a proliferation of Linux archive
>>  formats, and one of the problems I had was that I needed to upgrade
>>  the archive tools. Which needed an upgraded compiler, which needed a
>>  more uptodate library, when when downloaded needed an new archive
>>  tool.
>
>
> As mentioned in another thread, any debian distribution should be able
> to handle all dependencies well. That's a feature of debian.
>
>>  [...] The speed limit on US 65 a couple miles from my home is 55.
>>  Everyone goes 64. But of course, we have a culture clash. The
>>  hillbillies were the first to figure out what it meant when people
>>  from the government arrive saying they were there to help. But I will
>>  repeat yet again Bob- that it aint *my* scheme. I am simply
>>  mentioning the result we have already seen with CB radio.
>
>
> If it's not *YOUR* scheme, why do you continually come back to it when
> any number of other, viable and LEGAL and VIABLE schemes to do the same
> thing are pointed out to you?

Cause they dont work out here.

>>  I had no interest in disobeying regulations, and even sent in the
>>  card that came with my CB. But just like folks drive fast, they
>>  ignored the FCC too. And given that *fact*, I look at the way
>>  hardware prices are falling, power output increasing, and software
>>  proliferating, and see that the FCC will loose control.
>
>
> That's a political debate, not a technical one. IF you indeed are
> looking for solutions, THEY ALREADY EXIST. If instead you just want to
> debate the merits and shortcomings of existing communications
> regulations, there are probably better forums. You do need to be clear
> about which you desire.
>
>>  The problems I have had with the internet interface dont seem to be
>>  that rare, so there will be others motivated to get around the whole
>>  setup... and come up with, among other things, bootleg wireless
>>  connectivity.
>
>
> Does it exist? Sure. Is it the only, or even most practical way? No. Are
> you after a solution, or just arguments?
>
>>  Which will work whether the FCC likes it or not. Will work whether
>>  saboteurs or Murphy's law crashes the internet or not. Kazinsky cases
>>  are not only illogically angry, they are creative. And if the net
>>  crashes, sure Hams will try to fill in, but I have visited some ham
>>  links recently, and it looks to me like the interest in ham radio
>>  communications, like with the BBSes, is waning.
>
>
> Wait... now you want a system to back up the Internet as a whole? Not
> just your little gang?
>
>>  Well, I could try to write my own operating system in binary too. Why
>>  spend hours of my own time trying to track down the problem when I
>>  can get a new distro install disk for 5 bucks?
>
>
> Presumably for the same reason one might prefer a car that can actually
> be maintained without advanced diagnostics and computer hookups.
> Independence. The satisfaction of "knowing how it all works." Bull
> headed obstinance.
>
>> > [...] Wrong. It was designed to provide a network to operate in the
>> > event of total meltdown of centralized control. I would think that
>> > would be appealing to you.
>>
>>  We seem to live in different Virtual Realities. The original network
>>  that I know about was between university mainframes doing defense
>>  research.
>
>
> And the specific research was ...? It was NOT "setup by government to
> facilitate the functionality of organizations" -- at least not if you
> meant that to imply that it was to support "big business."
>
>> > Been done. All of it. Back in the 1980s. On pre-486 systems. At
>> > 1,200bps and slower. Wireless. No need for the bloat of 16MB RAM
>> > and a 486 and any stinkin' TV frequencies. No need for connections
>> > to any central network, unless you want it.
>>
>>  It looks to me that gray market SURVPCs are around capable of much
>>  faster speeds.
>
>
> Uhm, yeah. Of course. It it was already done at SLOWER speeds, then
> surely even older systems now (which are 10 years newer than those I
> described) can do it FASTER.
>
>>  Let me try to be clear. I live in a region which has lots of ranters.
>>  Given my choice between rule by the ranter and the government, I'd
>>  take the latter.
>
>
> So you're not actually after a solution, just a platform to rant?
>
>>  But I dont think it's upta me. You are arguing with the messenger
>>  cause you dont like the message.
>
>
> No, I'm trying to tell him that what he professes to desire exists, and
> that I and others have done it using hardware and technologies FAR FAR
> older than those he's proposed using!
>
>>  People who live in rural areas live with regulations which were
>>  written by people who live in urban areas. They aint really happy
>>  about that, and since in a democracy, the majority rules, and the
>>  urban majority is 98%, rural folks have no choice but to rant.
>
>
> Doesn't explain farm subsidies and the like, but OK. But you can also DO
> something about what you started out talking about -- namely use older
> hardware and technologies to build a "separate" Internet-like
> communications system.
>
>>  [...]There are no seatbelts in it, and the antique car nuts would go
>>  ballistic if regulations were applied.
>
>
> Which is exactly why I put the "in some jurisdictions". So, keeping with
> the analogy: One some roads (ISPs), newer technology is mandated,
> whereas with others it's not. YOUR ISP may require specific ppp options
> your software doesn't support. You COULD update the ppp software, but
> you chose not to. That doesn't mean your older distribution CAN'T do it.
>
>>  [...] So, I am somewhat skeptical that all the goodies presented to
>>  us now will be all that durable either.
>
>
> Yet you resist maintaining the usability of your existing system
> (distribution.) Odd.
>
>>  And if people find out that they can use their PC to wirelessly
>>  communicate in their local area without paying a phone bill- they
>>  will. whether the FCC likes it or not. The numbers will be so vast
>>  that the Ham bands will be ignored, along with their limits on
>>  bandwidth, and of course... speed limits. They wont need a design
>>  from me.
>
>
> Ah, so this is a fictional work in progress? Some grand prediction of
> "that which is yet to come?" You certainly seem to have convoluted
> goals, and a resistance to actually accomplishing anything that would
> WORK for people today!
>
> 1. People CAN use their PCs to communicate wirelessly in their local
> area (as well as world-wide) with no recurring costs. Today. Legally.
> WITHOUT violating FCC regs, or stepping carelessly on legitimate users.
>
> 2. If these are the same numbers that simply give up and upgrade their
> distributions whenever they can't figure out something, I seriously
> doubt they'll be up to what you describe.
>
> 3. They certainly do not need a design from you.
>
> - Bob
>

Anthony J. Albert wrote:

>Minimum cost will probably be to set up an eight-port hub or switch in
>your room with the Macintoshes, and then run a cable from the uplink
>port of the hub or switch, downstairs to the 16-port hub.  This will
>probably cost about US$150 for the hub and cabling.
>
>Note that some of the older Macintoshes may not be able to get IP
>addresses automatically from some DHCP/bootp servers - we've had off-
>and-on problems with this everywhere I've worked.   Assigning and hard-
>coding an address on the Mac works every time, though.
>
>Hope this helps,
>Anthony Albert
>
>===========================================================
>Anthony J. Albert                     albert@...
>Systems and Software Support Specialist          Postmaster
>Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle
>        "This is only temporary, unless it works."
>                        --- Red Green
>
>
>
Thanks Anthony.  I was going to do that, but I'm pretty sure my router
is hooked to this port on the hub.  Not sure if it's possible to just
hook it up to a standard port.  That and the fact that I'm not so sure I
could easily run a hard wire upstairs are the primary reasons I was
trying to use the wireless portion of my router for this function.

Just a message from Doug...

GDB-Dell-WinME wrote:
> [...] That and the fact that I'm not so sure I could easily run a
> hard wire upstairs are the primary reasons I was trying to use the
> wireless portion of my router for this function.

If you pick up a second WAP/router with a built-in switch for the Macs,
and if the new WAP/router and the existing D-Link support bridged
operation, you're all set. Depending on the number of Macs, you may need
another switch/hub for them.

Connecting hub-hub (hub-switch, switch-switch) is generally no big deal.
You just need a crossover cable, or adapter.

- Bob

Glenn Gilbreath Jr. wrote:

>[...]
>Follow the  wabbit.
>
Uhm.... No.

Glenn, do an AV scan!

- Bob

Hiya List!

In regards to Bob and others...it will not do any good for
me to run an AV scan, since I use 4 different antivirus scanners
already!  The message in question was NOT sent by me...I don't
have access to the exact header data, but I would doubt very much
if any of my particular IP information is there.  I use only
dialup, and the majority of the time I'm in DOS.  Someone somewhere
that has a list of email addresses has a trojan on their system,
plucking names at random for the "From" address.  Besides, when is
the last time you knew me to send ANY attachment to the list, this
or any other?

The worst part is the offending machine may not even belong to an
"individual" but could be a server located in some business office
somewhere, quietly running Win2K server or later with IE6...all
the while pumping the Net full of crap.  My latest version of
Windows is Win95A, no file or printer sharing, only "network" is
via dialup networking.  At the moment, I'm running only in DOS,
using my own TCP/IP driver, and Arachne 1.77;GPL;386+.  If some
off-the-wall trojan has been created for DOS, then Linux is next,
followed by MAC OS X, UNIX, AIX, SUN/SPARC and whatever else is
called an operating system!

C U L8R!
Wiz  <{;-)
(if it ain't signed like that, I didn't send it!)
Wizard57M
Glenn Gilbreath Jr.
http://members.surfbest.net/wizard57m@surfbest.net/index.htm
     -- A Proud User of Arachne for DOS, GPL Version ! --
-- DOS Internet, Close Windows and Keep the Internet Open! --

Hello Glenn,

Saturday, August 7, 2004, 11:01:44 PM, you wrote:

GGJ> In regards to Bob and others...it will not do any good for
GGJ> me to run an AV scan, since I use 4 different antivirus scanners
GGJ> already!  The message in question was NOT sent by me...

I sort of figured that it wasn't sours, because there are very few
viruses in the wild still, that actually post a non-spoofed 'From' and
'Reply To' address. So having your name on it, was like a guarantee
that you didn't send it.<g>

Most lists I belong to are set to strip out all attachments, so when I
receive email with a list identifier in the 'Subject' line... like
[SURVPC], and it has an attachment, it is usually sent directly to me,
and not distributed through the list, as this on apparently was.

The list owner might want to consider refusing attachments. I can't
remember the last time I saw anyone send a legitimate attachment to
this list... most people just upload big stuff to their websites, and
add the URL to the email.

-wittig http://www.robertwittig.com/
.

Glenn Gilbreath Jr. wrote:

>  [...] In regards to Bob and others...it will not do any good for me
>  to run an AV scan, since I use 4 different antivirus scanners
>  already!

I normally would've written it off as such but...

>  The message in question was NOT sent by me...I don't have access to
>  the exact header data, but I would doubt very much if any of my
>  particular IP information is there. I use only dialup, and the
>  majority of the time I'm in DOS. Someone somewhere that has a list
>  of email addresses has a trojan on their system, plucking names at
>  random for the "From" address. Besides, when is the last time you
>  knew me to send ANY attachment to the list, this or any other?

I've had such happen to me as well, but the recipients of these are
usually someone (or a list) in the victim machine's owner's list, so
since the From: and To: matched, though maybe this was the trail.
Apologies if it wasn't yours! By all rights, I should've included the
list itself (the server) in the suggestion to scan.

>  [...] My latest version of Windows is Win95A, no file or printer
>  sharing, only "network" is via dialup networking. At the moment, I'm
>  running only in DOS, using my own TCP/IP driver, and Arachne
>  1.77;GPL;386+.

Heh, yeah that does sound like a long shot for a target configuration!

>  If some off-the-wall trojan has been created for DOS, then Linux is
>  next, followed by MAC OS X, UNIX, AIX, SUN/SPARC and whatever else is
>  called an operating system!

The spammers and virus-writers have long been cooperating. This is
interesting in that the recipient (this list) seems to have been linked
to the sender (Glenn). The harvesting of "good" addresses is an old
trick, as is scooping addresses from victim (infected) machines. But if
they're getting "more smart" about it, lists using "trusted" senders are
in danger. Not good!

Anyhow, glad yours is OK Glenn!

- Bob

I know, can't be done ... <G>  I finally matched up how to pull in the
"new" driver for the NIC, and then trash the MS idea of what should be
in the system.ini file, and get MS Client for DOS to install the driver
correctly on the right interrupt and actually start the network
software! [And anyone who dares to say "Is that all???" had better start
runnin' before openin' mouth!]

The 'readme' gives me all these hints about what to do with this and
that, but although there are files which claim to be tcp/ip stuff, the
tcpip setup spoken of does not exist in what MS made available for its
free (can you say really legacy) download.

Sooo ... do I try to bring telnet up and poll the "server" on NT so it
knows I exist?  Right now the router doesn't even know it, although I've
got a machine name, a user name, and have the software set to include
the system in the "workgroup" workgroup, and all that other good crap.
I don't care if the router never recognizes me, but damn I'd like it if
I could get the NT laptop and the XP desktop to accept my DOS existance!
There are some data files & writings I'd like to have backed up
elsewhere since my Travan tape drive died (choked on the tape as it
stripped it off the spindle?) a couple of years back and I'm still
trying to figure out if the problem with the SCSI drive(s) is really HDD
centric or if its adapter card/bios centric, and don't say "get new" cuz
a new bootable adapter card would run more than a new 80Gig EIDE HDD ..

Thus I ask, anyone got any ideas what the next step is to getting the
DOS computer recognized by the other workgroup machines???

l.d.

L.D. Best wrote:

>  [...] I know, can't be done ... <G> I finally matched up how to pull
>  in the "new" driver for the NIC, and then trash the MS idea of what
>  should be in the system.ini file, and get MS Client for DOS to
>  install the driver correctly on the right interrupt and actually
>  start the network software! [And anyone who dares to say "Is that
>  all???" had better start runnin' before openin' mouth!]

When I last used the MS DOS client (from the NT Server CD IIRC) it had a
reasonable front-end that asked the required questions for setup. TCP/IP
wasn't exactly obvious, but it was helpful. Did you use that, or edit
the files manually?

>  The 'readme' gives me all these hints about what to do with this and
>  that, but although there are files which claim to be tcp/ip stuff,
>  the tcpip setup spoken of does not exist in what MS made available
>  for its free (can you say really legacy) download.

Was/Isn't TCP/IP a separate package for the DOS client? I needed the DOS
client disks, plus an additional TCP/IP one.

>  Sooo ... do I try to bring telnet up and poll the "server" on NT so
>  it knows I exist?

That would be fine, if you're sure there's a telnet server to connect
to! Otherwise, do you have a ping utility? That's the lowest level way
to test that TCP/IP is working. Ping your own address to make sure the
stack is OK, then the router. If those work, you've got the basics up.
Then try pinging something by IP address beyond the router. If local
checks work, but that doesn't, it's a routing issue. Make sure your
default gateway is set to the router's IP address. Once that works, try
pinging your DNS server (usually your ISP's). If that works, set your
DNS settings and it should be all set.

>  Right now the router doesn't even know it, although I've got a
>  machine name, a user name, and have the software set to include the
>  system in the "workgroup" workgroup, and all that other good crap.

Does "NET VIEW" etc. work at all?

>  I don't care if the router never recognizes me, but damn I'd like it
>  if I could get the NT laptop and the XP desktop to accept my DOS
>  existance!

NT, at least, should. However, make sure TCP/IP is all working 1st!

Now, you COULD use NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP but that will limit what
you can do with the DOS machine 'net-wise, and may require adding more
stuff to the other boxen than you want.

>  [...] Thus I ask, anyone got any ideas what the next step is to
>  getting the DOS computer recognized by the other workgroup
>  machines???

ONCE you have basic ethernet and TCP/IP connectivity established, MS
networking is fairly straightforward. However, don't try doing too much
until you're sure that's all working.

If you configure all of your systems in 'workgroup' mode (peer-peer),
they should generally find each other. If one of the machines will be
'up' more than the others, you may want to set it as the browse master.
MS has some fairly good home networking guidelines for this. The
important thing is that they can ping each other. After that, it's
tweaking MS network settings.

- Bob

I'm not positive, though I'll check, but I'm pretty sure attachments don't
work on the list anyhow.  But I agree, if you receive an email with an
attachment, and it's not from someone you know (prefferrably because they
sent a message saying it was coming) then just delete it.  I do all the
time. the number of silly viruses that infect machines and send out
spoofed emails is insane.  They typically fill several megs of my inbox
everyday.  Adding thousands of email addresses to the block list only
helps marginally, since most of the sender addresses are spoofed anyhow,
it won't prevent someone from sending you an email from an address you
don't block <sigh>

Travis Siegel wrote:

>[...] I'm not positive, though I'll check, but I'm pretty sure attachments
don't
>work on the list anyhow.
>
Looking at the original message, it seems to have been SENT in
mime-encoded format, but converted (filtered?) to text somewhere. Does
the list do this? The worm itself might be sending malformed messages (a
small break at least.) In any case, the mime attachment became just so
much odd text.

- Bob

L.D.,

Say, check J Helmig's web site, www.wown.com, and look at his little
discussion of networking DOS with Win9X,NT,3X etc!  Great stuff there!
http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/Doscltcp.htm
Be sure and do not put the dots (periods) in the IP Addresses like
you do on a Windows machine!

C U L8R!
Wiz  <{;-)
(yep, it's me, using WizMail this time, with NE text editor, in DOS!)
Wiz  <{;-)
Wizard57M
Glenn Gilbreath Jr.
http://members.surfbest.net/wizard57m@surfbest.net/index.htm
-- DOS Internet, Close Windows and Keep the Internet Open! --

As stand-alone or as hook-in for the ReRead offline reader, the DOS
program QPARSER.exe tries to tidy up the illegible mess which comes
with so-called "Quoted-Printable" email/attachments (most of all from
M$ Outhouse Exploder and the like or badly installed IIS-SMTPs.)
Available at
              www.inti.be/hammer/qparser.zip

"Quoted-Printabel" (QP) _should_ be legible text; but what comes out of
an M$-Void or -Composter produced attachment is an indigestible salad
of linebreaks, missing such, arbitrarily interjected empty lines; and
the QP-encoders of that sort just don't keep to the standards - ISO
character sets are tweaked to what M$ & Corp. consider what suits them
best. And none of the existing QP decoders is even capable to translate
them to the default set of the Net, ISO 8851 (or CodePage 437, the IBM
charset with which about two thirds of all 'puters on earth run
"natively".)

QPARSER allows the use of external, individually composed char remapping
lists/tables, and flexibly reformats linebreaks and paragraphs. So that
the result becomes indeed both quotable and printable.

// Heimo Claasen //<revobild at revobild dot net>// Brussels 2004-08-08
The WebPlace of ReRead - and much to read  ==>  http://www.revobild.net

Stumbled over these three URLs, maybe of use in this context (the
latter two found in the first, where there are more pointers):

www.dendarii.co.uk/FAQs/dos-net.htm

www.jacco2.dds.nl/samba/dos.html

ftp://ftp.microsift.com/BusSys/Clients/MSCLIENT/

-hc

There is an improved version of the AUTOPOP script to use with NETBAS
for fetching mail from POP3 accounts and avoiding spam-download:

    www.inti.be/hammer/playnet/autopop6.zip

In use with NETBAS[*], the script allows in a "revolving" way to sort
out mail at POP3 mailboxes _offline_ without downloading the whole spam
load. Especially with dial-in connectivity this can save considerably
on connection and online fees and storage volume.

The earlier issue (Autopop5) had a somewhat over-secure routine which
slowed down the start-up when there were large numbers of mails left at
an account after a previous run.  The improved script does this much
faster.  (Even with a "slow" unit - I test on an 25MHz-'286AT - the delay
is now almost not noticeable any more.)

The script - and its use (under DOS) with a packet driver and the NETBAS
interpreter - is devised to keep down metered connectivity costs for
emailing with dial-up access.  Already in its "slower" version it
succeded brilliantly, over the last half year, in comparison even with
(though prevailingly high) ADSL rates in the "competitive" telco
environments tested in W.European urban areas; not to speak of GSM
(mobile phone) uplinks.

// Heimo Claasen //<revobild at revobild dot net>// Brussels 2004-08-08
The WebPlace of ReRead - and much to read  ==>  http://www.revobild.net

[*] NETBAS (www.inti.be/hammer/playnet/netbas34.zip) is the nifty little
Basic-like interpreter by Martin Goebbel, running on a packet driver and
offering a full-fledged scripting language facility for all sorts of Net
tasks.

IMPERIAL PALACE LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL
IMPERIAL  PALACE CASINOS
AN AFFILIATE OF INTERNATIONAL LOTTO COMMISSION
FROM: INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION/PRIZE AWARD DEPT.
REF: IMLT/66711786078/04
BATCH: 14/811/IPD /NL
RE: WINNING NOTIFICATION .
Dear our treasured lucky winner,
RE: YOUR GRAND PRIZE AWARD WINNING NOTIFICATION .
It is our pleasure to inform you of the announcement today as dated of
our promotions programme held on Wednesday 22nd, September, 2004.
Participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from
50,000 name of people living in the following countries: United
Kingdom,Canada America, Europe, Switzerland, Australia, New
Zealand, Middle-East, Asia and Africa as part of our international
promotions program conducted annually to encourage prospective overseas
entries. The result of our computer draw 872 of this day selected your
names and email address on the lucky jackpot winning number 24 - 60 - 90
- 15 - 75 -49 - 40, Serial number : NLSIMP 718545 which consequently won
the lottery jackpot grand prize awards in the 2nd category.
As a result, you have been approved a lottery jackpot lump sum grand
prize awards winning of US $1,000,000.00 ( One Million US dollars Only) bonded
and insured under a comprehensive insurance policy in your
names for security reasons and credited to file Ref. No:.IMLT/66711786078/04
This is from the total prize of US $10,000,000.00 shared among the lucky
winners in this category as part of our promotional programme for this year
2004. This is your opportunity that your fate has brought to you and we are
honoured to have you in a master database. We hope with part of this prize
award winning, you will take part in our subsequent lottery jackpots while
we say,
Congratulations!!!
You have the options of being paid by cash, certified bank draft or Swift
Telegraphic Transfer. NO PRIZES WILL BE REISSUED AFTER THE 2ND  DAY OF
OCTOBER, 2004!
ELIGIBILITY: This promotion is offered only electronically via the
Internet and is open to all natural persons age at least 16 years and
older with a valid email address and who live in any of the
aforementioned countries.
This promotion is void in all other countries and also is Void where
prohibited. Principals and employees of the National Lottery and its
respective parents, subsidiaries and immediate family members of each are
not eligible to claim their prize awards. We have always strived to keep
the games easy to play and win, keep the games fresh and interesting,
respond to emails from players/advertisers and lucky winners as quickly
as possible and pay our winners as fast as possible after all statutory
obligations have been duly completed on the part of Overseas winners. We
feel we have accomplished this and this is probably one of the main
reasons that we have been able to stay in business and rated the best
national lottery organisation among others.
CLAIM PROCEDURES: For overseas lucky winners, it is our standard
practices to allocate accredited agents for the processing of claim
application on behalf of overseas lucky winners and payment of grand prize
awards winning to the benefit of beneficiaries after all modalities have
been completed satisfactorily. To begin your claims therefore, you are
advised on final notice and as a matter of urgency, to contact our licensed and
accredited claim agent for Overseas Lucky Winners for the processing of your
prize awards winning and payment to your designated bank account after all
statutory obligations have been concluded satisfactorily. Contact the
under-listed institution by phone, fax or email for your application to be
submitted and processed for payment thus:
Contact Officer: Mr. Jake Williams
Customer Support Department,
DGA FINANCIAL RECONCILIATION
T/f No: +31-617-268-899
Fax No: +31-649-018-846.
Email: dgafinrec@...
Be advised to introduce yourself to your claim agent as allocated with a
copy of this award notification letter and present your full contact
information and valid means of personal identification as true
beneficiary/lucky winner of this lottery jackpot grand prize to enhance
your payment arrangements.
IMPORTANCE NOTICE: (a) Being an Overseas lucky winner, you constitute
entrant's full and unconditional agreement to and acceptance to comply
with the terms and conditions of claims to avoid any discrepancy in the
cause of payment of your grand prize awards winning.
(b) Due to mixed up in some numbers and names and for the purpose of
confidentiality, be advised to keep this award notification as secret
from public notice until your claim has been processed and your prize
money remitted to your designated bank account as this is part of our
precautionary measures to avoid double claim or misuse of this programme
by some social miscreants. Hence, your prize award winning is
confidential as our winners are at liberty to remain completely anonymous
until payment is effected to the benefit of the beneficiary. Our staffs
are sworn to secrecy, so you will be the only one to know what you have
won hence, this notification via this medium (EMAIL) to avoid
interception of official
letters.
(c) By this bonus grand prize awards winning, you acknowledge your
understanding and acceptance to be added to our lottery master player
database.
(d) By this bonus grand prize awards winning, you agree to receive our
periodic mailings which will include, but are not limited to:
Newsletters, Invitations to Play, Announcements for other Lottery Games and
Offers we feel would be of interest to our master player.
(e) By this bonus grand prize awards winning, you understand that you
have the right to be removed from any such mailing list which
automatically disqualifies you from subsequent lottery entries. Removal
instructions are on every mailing.
(f) Finally, we hereby do solemnly guarantee to maintain the privacy of
our master players/lucky winners database and shall not make available
for sale, rent, lease or misuse any information about our players/lucky
winners. Hence, our staffs are sworn to secrecy thereby guaranteeing
adequate security of personal information provided by our players/lucky
winners. In conclusion therefore, you are to take cognizance of the
limited time frame for claim processing and payment of your grand prize
award winning hence, this is promotional programme prize awards for a
stipulated period of time and therefore, be advise on final notice to
begin your claim immediately hence, all prizes awards must be claimed and
disbursed within the stipulated period tagged "End of Claim" date as
elapse of this date will authorized funds withholding for redirection to
Charity Account as abandoned/unclaimed without notice.
On this note therefore, we congratulate you for your grand prize awards
winning and welcome you in our subsequent lottery entries. As always, we
remain at your complete disposal.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Harold Van Hoff,
Promotion Director.
International Promotions Unit.

Call out Gouranga be happy!!!
Gouranga Gouranga Gouranga ....
That which brings the highest happiness!!

AWARD NOTIFICATION.
CYPERLOTTERIES INTERNATIONAL LOTTO.SPA PROMO/PRIZE AWARD DEPARTMENT.
ADDRESS: VIA RONCHI 40-43, 10091 , ALPIGNANO ..
REF: KOS/87777453-47/04
BATCH: 677/65854398/GA
RE / AWARD NOTIFICATION / PROCESSING ADVICE:
We are pleased to inform you of the announcement on the 30th of MAY,2005. of
winners of the CYPER PROMO LOTTERY / INTERNATIONAL,PROGRAMS held on
27TH,MAY,2005 for the 2005.ALL GAMES PROMOTION Your email address attached to
ticket number 99-00004658, with serial number 63520 drew the lucky numbers
11-21-33-42-43-63, and subsequently won the lottery in the 1st category. You
have therefore been approved of a lump sum pay out of EUR1,500,000.00(ONE
MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND EUROS) in credited to file REFERENCE
NUMBER:KAL/77-C765916493.This is from total prize money of EUR2,500,000.00
shared among the international winners in our 1st -5th categories. All
participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn form 25,000
company email addresses and 30,000,000 individual email addresses from
Australia, NewZealand, America, Europe, North America and Asia as part of
International Promotions Program, which is conducted
annually.CONGRATULATIONS! Your funds is now in custody of a financial
Security company insured in your FILE REFERENCE Due to the mix up of
some numbers and names,we advice that you keep this award strictly from
public notice until your claim has been processed and your money
remitted to your designated account or any other form of claim. This is
part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming or unscrupulous
acts by participants of this program. This lottery program was promoted
by our group of philanthropists. We hope with part of your prize, you
will participate in our end of year high stakes EUR10,000,000
EUROS International Lottery in the year 2005. To process your claim,
please contact your file/claim officer: MRS BRITHNEY WOOD of CYPER
LOTTERIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,SPA.  email to cyperlotteries@....
Make sure that you quote your winning
references in all your correspondence with them. Please be informed that NON
RESIDENCE of ITALY will be required to procure an Affidavit of Lotto
Claim/Court clearance certificate from the Court in ITALY prior to award
payment policy of Organisers/European Gaming Board as required by the paying
Authority.
Please be aware that the Paying Authority will Effect Payment Swiftly
upon satisfactory Report, Verifications and validation provided by this
processing Agent. For due processing and remittance of your winning
prize to designated account of your choice, please treat as urgent.
Remember, all prize money must be claimed not later than 1st of
JULY 2005.After this date,all funds will be returned and treated as
unclaimed.
NOTE: In order to avoid unnecessary delay and complications, please
remember to quote your reference and batch numbers in every one of your
correspondences with your agent and all reply must be via email as to
ensure the legibility. Furthermore, should there be any change of your
address, do inform your claims agent as soon as possible.
Congratulations once again from our team of staff and thank you for
being part of our promotional program. Note: Anybody under the age of 21
is AUTOMATICALY DISQUALIFIED.
Sincerely,
MR DELIO WALSH.
(Lottery Coordinator).

   This mail was sended with unregistered version of Zmei Mail Sender.Visit
http://www.zmei-soft.com for free download of Zmei Mail Sender.