Searching \ for '[PIC]: Newbie needs help' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/begin.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Newbie needs help'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: Newbie needs help'
2004\11\22@142821 by John Colonias

flavicon
face
Hi,

 I am VERY new in this, therefore, be...kind to me!!! I just bought a
development tool (PIC18Fxx20 64/80L TQFP Demo Board), I have downloaded
the MPLAB IDE, I know some Assembly and C, but I need some help to get
started.
I will use this mostly, to learn the PIC18 environment and use for robot
control.
Does anyone have any sample codes that I can use with this system, to
get me going?

Thanks, John


____________________________________________

2004\11\22@143721 by Celucables

flavicon
face
Somebody can tell me if is posible to clone pics if this was ERASED
number outside. i need equipment to read, this hex codes.
Thank you very much.

Giancarlo


-----Mensaje original-----
De: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu] En nombre
de John Colonias
Enviado el: Lunes, 22 de Noviembre de 2004 05:25 p.m.
Para: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Asunto: RE: [PIC]: Newbie needs help

Hi,

 I am VERY new in this, therefore, be...kind to me!!! I just bought a
development tool (PIC18Fxx20 64/80L TQFP Demo Board), I have downloaded
the MPLAB IDE, I know some Assembly and C, but I need some help to get
started.
I will use this mostly, to learn the PIC18 environment and use for robot
control.
Does anyone have any sample codes that I can use with this system, to
get me going?

Thanks, John


____________________________________________

2004\11\22@155258 by Peter Moreton

flavicon
face
Would you like to explain why you need to read the hex code from a PIC? -
The best way to clone a PIC is to compile/assemble the source code and then
program lots of blank devices. :-)


{Quote hidden}

____________________________________________

2004\11\22@183545 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 1142 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms010505010805050907070102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would love to know what scam he is trying, lol.  Maybe car ECU's, you
know the performance ones.

Peter Moreton wrote:

>Would you like to explain why you need to read the hex code from a PIC? -
>The best way to clone a PIC is to compile/assemble the source code and then
>program lots of blank devices. :-)
>
>
>  
>
>>{Original Message removed}

2004\11\22@193000 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 1336 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms030509010601090701080102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

123 any different?

Justin Fielding wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>>> {Original Message removed}

2004\11\22@210412 by techy fellow

picon face
I would also like to know how cloning is being done. To me, it should be okay to backup your investment. The problem is, manufacturer deliberately charge a replacement cost of the MCU to about 30% to 40% of the cost of the equipment. Hence, you are stuck with them as in, you only have 2 choices. Pay thru' your nose to get the replacement part or buy a brand new one.

For example. I bought a hobby kit at $39.00. The cost of replacing the PIC16F628A (with the software burnt-in) is, $20.00. It is not possible for me to buy an extra chip to use it for other purpose (ie. hardware specific), right ?

If any person is willing to share, pls send the tip to my private email address at;
EraseMEtechyfspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTyahoo.com. Thanks in advance for the info.

cheers,

Justin Fielding <justinfieldingspamspam_OUTyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
123 any different?

Justin Fielding wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>>> {Original Message removed}

2004\11\22@210605 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
No different - still appears as an attachment.
(I had to read the attachment to see the message to reply to :-) ).


           RM


----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Fielding" <@spam@justinfieldingKILLspamspamyahoo.co.uk>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <KILLspampiclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


> ______________________________________________

2004\11\22@222648 by Jinx

face picon face

> I would also like to know how cloning is being done. To me, it
> should be okay to backup your investment.

There are plenty of references to copying PICs in the archives - it's
been covered a million times (well, 4 that I can think of)

Basically, if code protect is set, you're screwed, unless you want
to devote hours of high- or low-tech effort just TRYING to break
in

> The problem is, manufacturer deliberately charge a replacement
> cost of the MCU to about 30% to 40% of the cost of the equipment.

Look at it this way - why does a part need replacing in the first place ?

If it's a faulty unit then you should be entitled to a replacement as a
swap for the original. If damaged by the user then a replacement fee
is fair enough

AFAIK micros are not covered by the same (contentious) laws that
cover backing up a CD for example. For one thing, copy protection
on a CD is nowhere near as secure as a micro's

> Hence, you are stuck with them as in, you only have 2 choices. Pay
> thru' your nose to get the replacement part or buy a brand new one

Unfortunately, yes, you are stuck with those choices. If you were a
manufacturer I think you'd adopt the exact same policy. I'm sure we've
all had a repair which cannot be completed because of an irreplaceable
part or a device that has to be thrown away for a similar reason

C'est la vie, or as the French would say "That's life"


____________________________________________

2004\11\23@002033 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> The problem is, manufacturer deliberately charge a replacement
>> cost of the MCU to about 30% to 40% of the cost of the equipment.

This is a not uncommon but iniquitous practice by many.

> Look at it this way - why does a part need replacing in the first place ?
>
1.
> If it's a faulty unit then you should be entitled to a replacement as a
> swap for the original.
and
2.
> If damaged by the user then a replacement fee
> is fair enough

Re 1. By whose logic?
(And if yours and not theirs, who say you are right?)

Faulty after how long?
Things often enough "just stop working" after variable periods of time
without it being the fault of the user. A fair price for a replacement part
is expected. Even a somewhat exaggerated one (as is often enough the case
for eg car parts). But reality in electronics is that replacement costs
amount to legalised theft.

Commercial warranties are often ridiculously short - little more than
extended burn ins. After that you can be at the mercy of the supplier.

I have a friend who services automotve diagnostic equipment. A significant
part of his work is working out ways to resurrect dead equipment that
suppliers want utterly outlandish prices for key parts for. EPROMS,
specially configured custom hard drives, even floppy diskettes with
parameter data in that MUST be used when the system is in use. A floppy
diskette in constant use obviously has a finite laiftime. If any one of
these die you can expect to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a
replacement. Even a floppy diskette, which you have bought with the original
machine can in some cases cost the better part of $1000 to replace with an
indentical one - no upgrade, no new data - just highway robbery.

> Unfortunately, yes, you are stuck with those choices. If you were a
> manufacturer I think you'd adopt the exact same policy.

No. Not everybody wishes to pillage and setal given half an opportunity. And
some maufacturers charge reasonably fairly.

> I'm sure we've all had a repair which cannot be completed because of an
> irreplaceable

Irreplaceable is not the same as held-to-ransom.


       RM

Re your recent question on another post - for a few days in the new year :-)



____________________________________________

2004\11\23@004003 by techy fellow

picon face
I understood your point on manufacturer need to protect their investment. I will also do likewise if I am a manufacturer. Unfortunately, in my country, poor after-sales-service is still rampant. This even applicable to big companies !!
For eg., my Pocket PC speaker is not working. I called the company to purchase a replacement and they refused. They insisted I must send the unit to them to replace even if I can do it myself. Here comes the knife. Checking and Evaluation of the PPC is $49.00. If repair needed, other charges apply. Fair !? I don't think so. Well, I hope manufacturers can pick up something from mistakes made by the movie industry.
Highly-pirced = More pirates or compatibles; Reasonably-priced = Lesser pirates or compatibles
That's Life, too.


Jinx <RemoveMEjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz> wrote:

> I would also like to know how cloning is being done. To me, it
> should be okay to backup your investment.

There are plenty of references to copying PICs in the archives - it's
been covered a million times (well, 4 that I can think of)

Basically, if code protect is set, you're screwed, unless you want
to devote hours of high- or low-tech effort just TRYING to break
in

> The problem is, manufacturer deliberately charge a replacement
> cost of the MCU to about 30% to 40% of the cost of the equipment.

Look at it this way - why does a part need replacing in the first place ?

If it's a faulty unit then you should be entitled to a replacement as a
swap for the original. If damaged by the user then a replacement fee
is fair enough

AFAIK micros are not covered by the same (contentious) laws that
cover backing up a CD for example. For one thing, copy protection
on a CD is nowhere near as secure as a micro's

> Hence, you are stuck with them as in, you only have 2 choices. Pay
> thru' your nose to get the replacement part or buy a brand new one

Unfortunately, yes, you are stuck with those choices. If you were a
manufacturer I think you'd adopt the exact same policy. I'm sure we've
all had a repair which cannot be completed because of an irreplaceable
part or a device that has to be thrown away for a similar reason

C'est la vie, or as the French would say "That's life"


___________________________________________

2004\11\23@024456 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> For example. I bought a hobby kit at $39.00. The cost of
> replacing the PIC16F628A (with the software burnt-in) is,
> $20.00. It is not possible for me to buy an extra chip to use
> it for other purpose (ie. hardware specific), right ?

You mean a blank 16F628A in which you fit your own software? They can be
bought everywhere.

If you mean that you want their softeware for free, I assume you also
think it is fair that (now or in the future) you will work for an hourly
rate of 0.00?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


____________________________________________

2004\11\23@034410 by techy fellow

picon face
No, of course, I meant a chip with their software burnt in. Since I bought from them as a replacement at $20.00, this meant, I am willing to pay for their work. But, I don't think it is fair to customer by charging such an exobitant price especially, knowing that the customer has no where to turn to. In the end, I switched to a different product. That's the least I could do cos' I was not held at gun-point when I bought their product in the first place.

Wouter van Ooijen <spamBeGonewouterspamBeGonespamvoti.nl> wrote:> For example. I bought a hobby kit at $39.00. The cost of
> replacing the PIC16F628A (with the software burnt-in) is,
> $20.00. It is not possible for me to buy an extra chip to use
> it for other purpose (ie. hardware specific), right ?

You mean a blank 16F628A in which you fit your own software? They can be
bought everywhere.

If you mean that you want their softeware for free, I assume you also
think it is fair that (now or in the future) you will work for an hourly
rate of 0.00?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


___________________________________________

2004\11\23@034629 by Jinx

face picon face

> I understood your point on manufacturer need to protect their
> investment. I will also do likewise if I am a manufacturer.

I do empathise, really. But realistically, what can you do ? Piracy
is a world-wide scourge and I don't blame manufacturers for how
they protect their wares. Of course, micro piracy (except for
credit card cloning) is probably not on the scale of games, music
and movies

The problem for a mftr is of course that if you can make one copy
of a PIC, you can make a million. The hardware itself could be quite
easy to copy and not having the hurdle of having to write s/w cuts
development costs considerably when making a clone or competitive
product

> For eg., my Pocket PC speaker is not working. I called the company
> to purchase a replacement and they refused. They insisted I must send
> the unit to them to replace even if I can do it myself. Here comes the
> knife. Checking and Evaluation of the PPC is $49.00. If repair needed,
> other charges apply. Fair !? I don't think so

I don't think so either. If you are able to do the repair yourself then
what's the problem ? In fact, they've probably done themselves a
dis-service by alienating you. If it were me I'd make a noise about it

> That's Life, too.

Yeah, s....y old world sometimes ;-)


____________________________________________

2004\11\23@074953 by olin_piclist

face picon face
techy fellow wrote:
> For example. I bought a hobby kit at $39.00. The cost of replacing the
> PIC16F628A (with the software burnt-in) is, $20.00.

That's free enterprise.  The vendor has every right to charge for their
product as they see fit.  You have every right to not buy it.

> It is not possible
> for me to buy an extra chip to use it for other purpose (ie. hardware
> specific), right ?

Why?  A 16F628A can be erased and reprogrammed as you like.  Of course,
that's a very expensive way to end up with a blank 16F628A.

> If any person is willing to share, pls send the tip to my private email
> address at; TakeThisOuTtechyfEraseMEspamspam_OUTyahoo.com.

If you are looking to crack the PIC code protection, go somewhere else.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\23@102955 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 21:40 -0800, techy fellow wrote:
> I understood your point on manufacturer need to protect their investment. I will also do likewise if I am a manufacturer. Unfortunately, in my country, poor after-sales-service is still rampant. This even applicable to big companies !!
>  
> For eg., my Pocket PC speaker is not working. I called the company to purchase a replacement and they refused. They insisted I must send the unit to them to replace even if I can do it myself. Here comes the knife. Checking and Evaluation of the PPC is $49.00. If repair needed, other charges apply. Fair !? I don't think so. Well, I hope manufacturers can pick up something from mistakes made by the movie industry.
>  
> Highly-pirced = More pirates or compatibles; Reasonably-priced = Lesser pirates or compatibles
>  
> That's Life, too.

Fine, now lets look at things from the Company's perspective:

A customer calls in, which costs the company money in support. The
customer CLAIMS they can fix it themselves and just want the part.

Now, let's assume for a moment the company goes ahead. Now matter HOW
cheap the part, having a company employee get the part, pack it and ship
it will cost it money, lets say $30 for all of that. Would you be happy
with that price?

Even if you were, now you have the part, and guess what, 9 times out of
10 (probably worse) the customer messes up the fix. So, they call the
company again. This time they try to blame the COMPANY for their screwup
(happens all the time). The result? An angry customer walking away.

See how it's loose/loose for the company? The only difference is this
route I just describe costs them MORE money then requiring you send it
in.

Now, do I agree that $49 for "looking over" the device is reasonable?
Well, considering the "throwaway" society we live in yes. Most things
are NOT designed to be fixed, even opening something like a PDA and
getting to the faulty part can EASILY take 30 minutes, maybe more if
some desoldering (i.e. an RF sheild) is required. Then replacing the
part and putting it back together. Then the company has to pack it and
ship it. $49 + a fee for actually fixing the problem seems reasonable.
Of course, the item probably isn't WORTH $49 anymore, hence my statement
about throwaway society.

The point I'm trying to make is most electronic items we buy these days
are NEVER meant to be repaired, they are designed to last a certain
amount of time and then die, resulting in the consumer buying a new one.

Live with that.

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

____________________________________________

2004\11\23@110107 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:50 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> For example. I bought a hobby kit at $39.00. The cost of replacing the
>> PIC16F628A (with the software burnt-in) is, $20.00.
>
> That's free enterprise.  The vendor has every right to charge for their
> product as they see fit.  You have every right to not buy it.

It's an admission by the vendor that they believe the major value of
their
"hobby kit" is in the firmware inside the PIC.  Or maybe wishful
thinking,
but as Olin says, it's their choice.

Now, a lot of "hobby kits" with such "valuable firmware" can be easily
duplicated using firmware that's been published on the net, at some
greater level of effort.  The most obvious example are the serial LCD
displays, that sell for some rather ridiculous premium over normal
parallel LCD displays, in spite of the fact that there is LOTS of code,
even TUTORIALS, on how to drive LCDs and do serial communications with
a PIC or other processor.

Ask "the community" how to duplicate the function of a commercial
device,
and you may get lots of responses.  Ask about breaking code protection
of
the same commercial device, and you get only flames...

BillW

____________________________________________

2004\11\23@112419 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Graf" <RemoveMEmailinglist2spamTakeThisOuTfarcite.net>
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


> The point I'm trying to make is most electronic items we buy these days
> are NEVER meant to be repaired, they are designed to last a certain
> amount of time and then die, resulting in the consumer buying a new one.

I wouldn't be quite that cynical.  Most of the electronic devices we buy
last well past the time they are technologically obsolete, so I don't think
it is worth it for the manufacturer to try to design in a failure date.  On
the other hand, we do expect these things to be incredibly cheap, so they
must make the manufacturing cost as low as possible to be able to sell the
things.  Manufacturing things to be repairable is expensive.  That Pocket PC
cost a couple hundred dollars.  That compute power, but in a much larger
box, would have cost thousands of dollars just a few years back.  Sure, much
of the inprovement is in the chips, but a LOT of it is in improving the
manufacturing costs.

A PDA is a particularly oboxious example.  I happen to have had mine now for
two or three years, but when I bought it, my expectation was for one year.
Not because I thought it would break, but because I thought that within a
year or so there would be another one so much faster and so much smaller I
would have to have that one.  Well, they haven't shrunk as quickly as I
expected, so my PDA is still serving, and may well for another year.  But in
this electronics biz, stuff changes fast.

Your example of what it takes to repair something is almost the same as the
$20 628 that started this thread.  Sure, you can get the chip for a couple
of bucks.  But even if I had the software, I wouldn't sell one for $20 - the
handling and programming and all that is just too much hassle to be worth
the price.

The fact of the matter is, people's time costs money, *LOTS* of money,
especially here in the U.S.  That $49 look at the PDA to see if it's
repairable sounds awful cheap to me.  It's hard to get even a minimum wage
employee here in the U.S. for less than $100 an hour, after all the non-wage
expenses.  When you take into account the time it takes to receive the
package, route it, unpackage it, repackage it and ship it, I doubt you have
any of that $49 left for the tech to look at it, and he's not going to be a
minimum wage employee.

--McD


____________________________________________

2004\11\23@113017 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 10:29 AM 11/23/2004 -0500, you wrote:


>The point I'm trying to make is most electronic items we buy these days
>are NEVER meant to be repaired, they are designed to last a certain
>amount of time and then die, resulting in the consumer buying a new one.
>
>Live with that.

I like the approach some companies have with their out-of-warranty
products- send the broken one in at your expense and we'll ship a new
one out at 50% of list price at our expense. Fair, and nobody has to
bother with trying to repair such cheap stuff.

I was going through the stock of an electronics repair facility recently-
it's UNBELIEVABLE the number of little parts they had to keep in stock to
repair various units. Each individually packaged and wrapped, with its
own label. Bits of custom plastic, switches, motors, mechanisms, board
assemblies. Maybe $100,000 worth of parts. Most of it went in the garbage
because it was never used- but they had to have it. The customer has to
pay for all that.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffEraseMEspam.....interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com




____________________________________________

2004\11\23@114506 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I am curious which hobby kit?
In many cases, rewriting the code is not a big deal but you do have to
understand the target hardware.

John Ferrell
My Competition is not my enemy!
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message -----
From: "techy fellow" <EraseMEtechyfspamyahoo.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:04 PM
Subject: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


{Quote hidden}

>>>> {Original Message removed}

2004\11\23@115500 by Mcgee, Mark

flavicon
face
> It's an admission by the vendor that they believe the major value of
> their
> "hobby kit" is in the firmware inside the PIC.  Or maybe wishful
> thinking,
> but as Olin says, it's their choice.

>
> Now, a lot of "hobby kits" with such "valuable firmware" can be easily
> duplicated using firmware that's been published on the net, at some
> greater level of effort.

I can see why somebody would want to protect the code in a PIC - it's their
intellectual property, possibly months/years of R&D and the expense that goes
with it, that can be handed to a competitor for peanuts if it's not protected.

Is it possible to break the code protection?  I just ask as I don't know if
it's worth bothering with it, should I ever sell anything with my coding on
the PIC - probably best so people don't get to know how bad the coding is!! :)

Cheers,
Mark

==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================

____________________________________________

2004\11\23@115806 by olin_piclist

face picon face
John J. McDonough wrote:
> It's hard to get even a minimum
> wage employee here in the U.S. for less than $100 an hour, after all
> the non-wage expenses.

That's rediculous.  A good rule of thumb is that the total compensation cost
and directly related expenses for an employee is 15% above what is actuall
paid to the employee.  This does not count use of electricity, floor space,
equipment required, etc, but that doesn't need to be anywhere near that
high.

Think of it this way, what hourly rate do various services that use a
person's time cost you?  Shop rates for mechanics is in the $40/hour to
$60/hour range.  That has to pay for all overhead plus some profit, so
obviously these places believe the mechanic is costing them a lot less than
that.  A local PC board assembly place that does small quantity hand built
stuff charges $40/hour shop rate.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\23@120837 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 3347 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (unknown type 8bit not decoded)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms000900090606040505020604
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



techy fellow wrote:

>I understood your point on manufacturer need to protect their investment. I will also do likewise if I am a manufacturer. Unfortunately, in my country, poor after-sales-service is still rampant. This even applicable to big companies !!
>
>For eg., my Pocket PC speaker is not working. I called the company to purchase a replacement and they refused. They insisted I must send the unit to them to replace even if I can do it myself. Here comes the knife. Checking and Evaluation of the PPC is $49.00. If repair needed, other charges apply. Fair !? I don't think so. Well, I hope manufacturers can pick up something from mistakes made by the movie industry.
>  
>
Thats very poor. Not on the subject of micros, but within electronics, I
used to send back PCM R/C receivers (worth over $200) to the
manufacturer for a service if it had been in a crash and needed
calibration and checking. I don't think I was ever charged more than $20
including shipping etc for services. This includes when they have had to
replace components on the receivers circuit board, and those accidents
which caused the problems were by no means down to the manufacturers fault.

{Quote hidden}

>_____________________________________________

2004\11\23@130529 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 2104 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms000005040003050706010702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mcgee, Mark wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Haha, yes, this is the biggest problem with open source, people can see
how bad your (or my) coding is :)

Justin.

{Quote hidden}

>_____________________________________________

2004\11\23@191324 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Your example of what it takes to repair something is almost the same as
> the
> $20 628 that started this thread.  Sure, you can get the chip for a couple
> of bucks.  But even if I had the software, I wouldn't sell one for $20 -
> the
> handling and programming and all that is just too much hassle to be worth
> the price.

But what about a 1.2 MB *diskette* of data for $500 - when you have already
bought a diskette that contained the same data, but it wore out, because it
was accessed every time the machine was used, and there was no way to back
up its purposefully non-standard format.

Or a "special" 100 MB or so IDE hard drive that's apparently identical to a
standard drive but will only work with its own controller and that's sold as
a service spare when it (inevitably) fails for over $1000?




       RM



____________________________________________

2004\11\23@191410 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
**** ANY REPLIES TO ME OFFLIST PLEASE ****
**** ANY REPLIES TO ME OFFLIST PLEASE ****
**** ANY REPLIES TO ME OFFLIST PLEASE ****
**** ANY REPLIES TO ME OFFLIST PLEASE ****


Justin said:

_______________________________________________

2004\11\23@200506 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
**** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
**** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
**** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
**** Please send any replies to me offlist ****

I see ALL of Justin Fielding messages as blank with attachments.
Some other people see them OK.
The "problem" here may be me :-) (or big Bill's software on my system or
...)

When I read Justin's messages in EVERY case I see no text in the body and
there are two attached files. One file is a digital signature and the other
is Justin's text. I am using Outlook Express. I have received one email that
says that they are receiving the messages OK!

So - could people please tell me **** OFFLIST**** how they see Justin's
messages. Are they blank, with the messages as an attachment, or can they
see the message normally, or ... ? Anyone replying please also advise what
O/S and browser they are using. It MAY be a problem with my system, but as I
see ALL other messages OK it seems more likely to be at least one of these
complex interactions. It will help generally to know just how it is caused.

Justin, what Operating System and email system are you using?


       Russell McMahon



----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Fielding" <RemoveMEjustinfieldingKILLspamspamyahoo.co.uk>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


> ______________________________________________

2004\11\23@212233 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face
> -----Original Message-----
  > From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu [KILLspampiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu]On Behalf
  > Of Russell McMahon
  > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:05 PM
  > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
  > Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help
  >
  >
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  >
  > I see ALL of Justin Fielding messages as blank with attachments.
  > Some other people see them OK.
  > The "problem" here may be me :-) (or big Bill's software on my
  > system or
  > ...)
  >

Russell,
I can't figure out how to reply to you offlist and for that I apologize.
Anyway, I see all of Justin's messages normally like any others.
I'm using MS Outlook.
There are also two attachments:
ATT03351.txt contains only the following as text:
       _____________________________________________

2004\11\23@225459 by techy fellow

picon face
Hi John,
I did not mention the kit's name is because from an ethical view point, its not nice to do so. I do not want the vendor to suffer from any decrease in sales because of my personal comments. As I mentioned in one of my replies, the vendor did not held me at gun-point when I bought the kit. In any case, I had voted with my $ (ie. buy kits from other manufacturers).
For clarification sake, I am a complete newbie in electronics (you know, "Electronics for Dummies" type).. That's why, I buy kits as a starting point to learn. As such, there is a high tendency for me to screw things up. For eg., in the past, I kept thinking it is okay to use an increased voltage (eg. I used a non-regulated wall-wart) on kits if the amp remain constant. That is, amp is the killer and not voltage, I mean, for kits. I was dead wrong. Because of that, I fried so many kits, other electronics and not to mention, fingers (er.. I mean, sausage) and eggs ! (yum, yum).
That's why, for expensive kits, if I can backup the MCU before I mess it up, I personally think it is a wise move for me to do so. I am a hobbist afterall and has no intention to earn a living out of it. Based on my current skill, I think I can change common electronic parts on the kit if I blew it/ them but, I won't be able to build the kit (eg. double-sided copper tracks and some impossible to get parts in my country). Hence, in order for me to rip the manufacturer of profits, simply duplicating the MCU is not enough because, I must also has the capabilities to manufacture the kit in order for the MCU to work with (ie. codes are specific to the kit). Nah ! Too much for me to handle. I am happy with my current job which is not related to electronics at all.


John Ferrell <EraseMEjohnferrellspamEraseMEearthlink.net> wrote:
I am curious which hobby kit?
In many cases, rewriting the code is not a big deal but you do have to understand the target hardware.

John Ferrell
My Competition is not my enemy!
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message ----- From: "techy fellow" To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:04 PM
Subject: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


{Quote hidden}

>>>> {Original Message removed}

2004\11\23@232137 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>   > I see ALL of Justin Fielding messages as blank with attachments.
>   > Some other people see them OK.

> Anyway, I see all of Justin's messages normally like any others.
> I'm using MS Outlook.

Interesting. So far then its 3:3.
Half can see the messages OK and half see them as attachments.
There are some variations in how the signature file(s) is/are seen.
Those who can see seem to be using non-Outlook Express (but no certainty in
that) and those who can't tend not to have said.
Hopefully a few more replies will come in.

Interestingly:

> There are also two attachments:
> ATT03351.txt contains only the following as text:
> ______________________________________________

2004\11\23@234821 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesspam_OUTspammit.edu]On Behalf
  > Of Russell McMahon
  > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:05 PM
  > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
  > Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help
  >
  >
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  > **** Please send any replies to me offlist ****
  >
  > I see ALL of Justin Fielding messages as blank with attachments.
  > Some other people see them OK.
  > The "problem" here may be me :-) (or big Bill's software on my
  > system or
  > ...)
  >
  > When I read Justin's messages in EVERY case I see no text in
  > the body and
  > there are two attached files. One file is a digital signature
  > and the other
  > is Justin's text. I am using Outlook Express. I have received
  > one email that
  > says that they are receiving the messages OK!
  >
  > So - could people please tell me **** OFFLIST**** how they see
  > Justin's
  > messages. Are they blank, with the messages as an attachment,
  > or can they
  > see the message normally, or ... ? Anyone replying please also
  > advise what
  > O/S and browser they are using. It MAY be a problem with my
  > system, but as I
  > see ALL other messages OK it seems more likely to be at least
  > one of these
  > complex interactions. It will help generally to know just how
  > it is caused.
  >
  > Justin, what Operating System and email system are you using?
  >
  >
  >         Russell McMahon
  >
  >
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: "Justin Fielding" <TakeThisOuTjustinfielding.....spamTakeThisOuTyahoo.co.uk>
  > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclistKILLspamspamspammit.edu>
  > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:08 AM
  > Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help
  >
  >
  > > _______________________________________________

2004\11\24@003740 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 23, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> A good rule of thumb is that the total compensation cost and directly
> related expenses for an employee is 15% above what is actually
> paid to the employee.

Really?  FICA by itself is 6+ percent, and there's the employer side
contributions to medicare, disability, medical, dental, and life
insurance.  That'd get up to about 15% of low-end employees pretty
quick,
wouldn't it?  Then there's vacation/sick leave (5 weeks out of 52 is
almost
10 percent by itself), retirement benefits (if any), and overhead costs
(HR,
payroll,  etc)

I thought we used 50% as a guideline.  Or maybe it was $50k/employee?  
It's
been a while since I was a manager, and even then I didn't have to pay
attention
too much to this sort of thing.  And of course we like to aim for
something
like $600k of income (for the company) for each employee...


> This does not count use of electricity, floor space, equipment
> required,
> etc, but that doesn't need to be anywhere near that high.
>
When was the last time you priced silicon valley floor space?  And
maintenance
(including the gardeners, of course, since landscaping is required...)

Yeah, you can operate at lower overhead, but I don't think it's
"normal" for
a company of any size to "only" spend 15% over a salary.  This of
course is
one reason why "consultants" are so popular...

BillW


____________________________________________

2004\11\24@063904 by jsand

flavicon
face
Hello Bill & PIC.ers,


>On Nov 23, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
>> A good rule of thumb is that the total compensation cost and directly
>> related expenses for an employee is 15% above what is actually
>> paid to the employee.
>
>Really?  FICA by itself is 6+ percent, and there's the employer side
>contributions to medicare, disability, medical, dental, and life
>insurance.  That'd get up to about 15% of low-end employees pretty
>quick,
>
>wouldn't it?  Then there's vacation/sick leave (5 weeks out of 52 is
>almost
>10 percent by itself), retirement benefits (if any), and overhead costs
>(HR,
>payroll,  etc)
>
>I thought we used 50% as a guideline.  Or maybe it was >$50k/employee?  

Twenty years ago, in another country (South Africa), in another life
(Coal Mine management) I was tasked with budgeting personnel
costs for a start-up new mine.

HR dept. advised me to use a figure of 35% for `consequential cost'
of employees, above the figure for their bare salaries.
This worked across the board, from the lowliest miner to the managers.
In practice, it was an accurate figure.


   best regards,   John

email from the desk of John Sanderson.
JS Controls, PO Box 1887, Boksburg 1460, Rep. of S. Africa.
Tel/Fax 011 893 4154,
Cell 082 741 6275,
web    http://www.jscontrols.co.za
Manufacturer & purveyor of laboratory force testing apparatus &
related products & services.

____________________________________________

2004\11\24@074131 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> **** ANY REPLIES TO ME OFFLIST PLEASE ****

If you want people to reply to a different address, you should include that
address somewhere in the email body where it can be easily clicked on with
most mailers.  With Outlook Express I tried doing a reply to all, then was
going to delete the list address.  However, your address didn't show up in
that list.  I could have saved the email message to a file, opened the file
with an editor, found the FROM line, copied your address, and pasted into
the TO field of this message, but that would have been more trouble than I
was willing to go thru for this purpose.

As for Justin's messages, I don't know since I don't see one right now.
Perhaps if you copied a paragraph or so from one of them I could recognize
whether I've read it before.  However, if they did indeed show up with empty
bodies and only attachments, my subcontious spam filter would have deleted
the message immediately without attention to the FROM or SUBJECT fields.
Maybe that's why I don't remember any messages you are talking about.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\24@075440 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> But what about a 1.2 MB *diskette* of data for $500 - when you have
> already bought a diskette that contained the same data, but it wore
> out, because it was accessed every time the machine was used, and there
> was no way to back up its purposefully non-standard format.
>
> Or a "special" 100 MB or so IDE hard drive that's apparently identical
> to a standard drive but will only work with its own controller and
> that's sold as a service spare when it (inevitably) fails for over
> $1000?

Personally I think they are making a mistake about where to try and squeeze
money from.  However, they have the right to charge what they want, and you
have the right to not buy it.  If you bought it anyway, then I guess it must
be worth it in the long run despite your protests to the contrary.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\24@082244 by olin_piclist

face picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:
>> A good rule of thumb is that the total compensation cost and directly
>> related expenses for an employee is 15% above what is actually
>> paid to the employee.
>
> Really?  FICA by itself is 6+ percent,

Actually it's more like 7.5%.

> and there's the employer side
> contributions to medicare, disability, medical, dental, and life
> insurance.

But only the medicare is mandatory.  I wasn't counting benefits, only the
pure overhead on top of what the employee gets paid that isn't optional.
The other 5% or so after FICA and medicare comes from workers comp insurance
and mostly other insurance costs that are proportional to payroll.

> Then there's vacation/sick leave (5 weeks out of 52 is
> almost
> 10 percent by itself),

Not for hourly workers.  And 5 weeks is a lot, especially for low end jobs.
The typcial is 10 holidays (2 weeks) and another 2 weeks of vacation.
Again, this isn't relevent for hourly workers.

> retirement benefits (if any),

Again, optional.

> and overhead costs (HR, payroll,  etc)

As I said before, these were not included in the 15% figure, although small
companies don't really have much HR expense.

> I thought we used 50% as a guideline.  Or maybe it was $50k/employee?

That sounds much more like the fully burdened cost.

I think you misunderstand the 15% figure.  This is the additional overhead
that is directly proportional to pay that the employer can't really do
anything about.  In other words, if I'm thinking of hiring you for
100K/year, I immediately think 115K/year cost.  Then I add on other things
that might or might not apply, like medical insurance, special equipment you
might need, additional space I may need to rent, additional load on
management, etc.  That second figure is often termed the "fully burdened"
cost.  That's the figure I keep in mind as my break even rate if I charge
out your time.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\24@082409 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>With Outlook Express I tried doing a reply to all, then was
>going to delete the list address.  However, your address
>didn't show up in that list.  I could have saved the email
>message to a file, opened the file with an editor, ...

It is actually easier than all that Olin, right click on the senders address
and "add to address book". However I agree with your sentiments about
putting return address in the letter body (it also allows you to set the
subject line for filtering at receiving end), and not really sure why one
cannot "reply all" to a PICList message and do what you were wanting to do.

>As for Justin's messages, I don't know since I don't
>see one right now.

They come through in the manner you have often complained about, with an eml
attachment, but Justin's ones are even worse in that the email content is
then in a .txt attachment inside that. I suspect it is something to do with
whatever he is using as his email editor. Going one deep in attachments is
bad enough, but going another level - I gave up after one or two, by the
time one closes all the windows on the way out.

I too use Outlook Expletive. I imagine that any reader that conforms to the
RFC which others have mentioned when you moaned about this "feature" in the
past will probably see the whole thing quite acceptably, or maybe just as a
txt attachment.

____________________________________________

2004\11\24@083906 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
olin_piclist@embedinc.com wrote :

> > Then there's vacation/sick leave (5 weeks out of 52 is
> > almost 10 percent by itself),
>
> ...5 weeks is a lot, especially for  low end jobs.

In Sweden it's (a minimum of) 5 weeks by the law.
And (also by the law) you can save 1 week/year up
to 5 years, so you can take a 10 week holliday once each
5 years. If you'd like...

Jan-Erik
____________________________________________

2004\11\24@090709 by DJMurray

flavicon
face
You're right, Bill! We have really 2 different rates where I work. One
was for office personnel, which added a nominal 50% overhead rate to
their salaries, and wage personnel, which added almost 75% overhead to
their rates!! We had a specialized manufacturing environment - thus the
different rates per employee.

Our overhead rates included everything from FICA, health and life
insurance, facilities, and corporate expenses.

Dennis

William Chops Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> ______________________________________________

2004\11\24@092136 by DJMurray

flavicon
face
Actually, Olin, it was quite easy to reply to Russell's message off-line
IF you use something other than Outlook.  I'm using Mozilla mail and I
have TWO emails I can reply to: At the top, I get "FROM" (which is
Russell's email address), and below that I get "REPLY TO:", which is the
PICLIST.

I'm sorry you're stuck with Outlook.  I gave it up over a year ago and
have NEVER looked back!  Same with IE.  I now use Mozilla for both
browser and mail - of course I'm running Linux now.  BUT, I just
converted my wife over to Firefox to replace her IE browser under
Windows & she won't go back to IE either!  There's a companion email
product for Firefox, but the name escapes me now.

Just FWIW, Olin!
Dennis



Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>_____________________________________________

2004\11\24@093029 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face


Alan B. Pearce wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Well, it's very strange.  When I see my messages on the list, they have
an attachment 'Part 1.2'.  This contains the mailinglist's footer.  I am
using Thunderbird and my messages are digitally signed.  I think the
attachmnet is simply the group's footer, which the mail server can't add
to the mail due to the message being digitally signed.  To get round
this it attaches the footer as a file instead.  This sounds correct to
me, I won't sign this one, lets see what happens.

Justin.

{Quote hidden}

>_____________________________________________

2004\11\24@093239 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 896 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms080303020006000108000704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

{Quote hidden}

That's great!  I think this legislation should be made compulsory across
the EU :)

>Jan-Erik
>_____________________________________________

2004\11\24@093920 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> It is actually easier than all that Olin, right click on

You can stop right there.  If it requires using the mouse it isn't going to
happen unless it's real important to *me*.  I can type quite well without
conscious thought, so I keep my hands on the keyboard.  Moving my hand way
over to the mouse, finding the cursor, aligning it, etc, all requires
deliberate thought and feels cumbersome.  I wish more software designers
took these kinds of things into account.  Adding proper keyboard shortcuts
is usually easy and doesn't detract from the clickety-click interface, but
it requires a policy of trying to service that need.  This is one of the
places where Microsoft apps tend to be way ahead of their competitive
alternatives.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\24@101237 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 2713 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms090106020508020605080904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yep.

Justin Fielding wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>> _______________________________________________

2004\11\24@104326 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Justin Fielding wrote:
> I won't sign this one, lets see what happens.

Got it just fine.

*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\24@105446 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>To get round this it attaches the footer as a file
>instead.  This sounds correct to me, I won't sign
>this one, lets see what happens.

This one came through fine, and just appears as text. The one you sent about
2 minutes later is the double level of attachments again.

If you can set your mail client to sent to the piclist without being signed,
you will have a lot more friends.

____________________________________________

2004\11\24@105648 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> It is actually easier than all that Olin, right click on
>
>You can stop right there.  If it requires using the mouse
>it isn't going to happen unless it's real important to *me*.  

No problem Olin. Agree with the sentiment about importance.
____________________________________________

2004\11\24@183644 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>You can stop right there.  If it requires using the mouse
>>it isn't going to happen unless it's real important to *me*.
>
> No problem Olin. Agree with the sentiment about importance.

I use IE and it's no problem at all - with or without using a mouse.
Maybe others have their OE set up differently.

My OE setup quotes the original message in my reply.

Hit "reply to" (ctrl R)

Message with ">" s  prepended *including sender's address* appears.
Mouse select OR keyboard select sender's address
eg     A.B.Pearce at l.ac.YOU_KAY was keyboard selected (obfuscated by me)
and paste into To field (shift-Tab x 4, Ctrl V (or shift-insert) )

I too am a luddite mouse-a-phobic.
I use the mouse where I must, but for many tasks that others use a mouse for
I use the far quicker superior methods by the keyboard.



       Russell McMahon


____________________________________________

2004\11\24@190657 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
CC Justin (no mouse actions were consumed in the preparation of this
message).

This is the first and only message of Justin's that I can see "normally".

Of the replies that I have received offlist, about 50% see Justin's messages
as I do - a blank subject field with he signature and message body in two
separate attachments. These seem to mainly be OE users but that's not
certain (not all have said).

Some people are seeing the attachments inside an attachment - enough to
drive the sanest crazy.

Those who report seeing the messages 'normally" all seem to have been NOT
using OE. Without going and looking i think that 1 or perhaps two outlook
(not express) users saw them OK. Users of Macs, Linux, DEC running Ultrix
(!)[ :-) ] and various non-Micro$oft PC based email programs seem to see
them OK. Also GMail is OK I think.

The "problem" appears to be one of interpretation. Lee Jones kindly sent me
an overview of what makes email tick - and it seems surprising that more
things don't go wrong than do already.

A "solution" to the "problem" would be for Justin not to digitally sign his
messages to the list. As OE is quite likely the largest single browser used
this would be a quick way of getting his messages read. There is probably a
better method which allows signing and OE display. I'll wait until the
answerings die down and then see if there's anything obvious in what i get.

Much of Lee's interesting answer appended below


       Russell McMahon

_______________________________________


>> Presentation of a MIME encoded message is up to the user's email
>> user agent.  Most people use a combined user agent and web browser.
>> So what you see is an indirect result of what you chose to use as
>> your email user agent.

> That has rapidly been becoming fairly clear of late :-)
> I've been noting how eg various webmails, Gmail & OE handle various
> emails. Also what happens when messages are relayed through various mail
> systems.

A relaying system may choose to enclose the message in another
wrapper layer, though usually it just adds some received header(s)
and passes the message on.  I think it can also simplify the MIME
message structure if the incoming message is too complex (has extra
structure that is redundant).

Spam filtering, virus blocking, and company policies may also block
part(s) (which sometimes leads to notice part(s) being added or
substituted) or block entire messages (which may cause a notice
message to be substituted for the original).

> I would have thought (obviously erroneously) that it would be
> relatively easy to write a standard that allowed dissimilar
> systems to display emails reasonably consistently.

MIME is not that standard.  MIME was written to allow binary
materials to be sent via a primarily 7-bit transport mechanism.
It was designed so that alternative representations of a part
(which should have the same content in different form) could
be supplied to allow the user's email agent to display the
best fit given the user's preference and the display hardware
that was available when the message was read.  Recall that at
the time MIME was created, most display hardware was textual
terminals with graphics capability being a much higher cost.
People would agree on display IF (note big IF):

1) everyone agreed on which was most important -- content or
  form (prettiness) -- so that the "correct" one was chosen
  to maximize user's desires on display hardware available.
  Given the variability of display subsystem and different
  people having different display preferences, you cannot
  standardize it.

2) commercial vendors all agreed on what was "best" for the
  user and all wanted to look the same -- note that this is
  normally interpreted as opposite of market differentiation.

Technically, it's fairly easy (OK, lets call it achievable).
Politically and commercially, it is (in my opinion) impossible.


____________________________________________

2004\11\25@010335 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> A "solution" to the "problem" would be for Justin not to digitally sign his
> messages to the list. As OE is quite likely the largest single browser used
> this would be a quick way of getting his messages read. There is probably a
> better method which allows signing and OE display. I'll wait until the
> answerings die down and then see if there's anything obvious in what i get.

The problems with standards for digital e-mail signatures have been
going on for years.

Some programs are intelligent and can render pretty much any digital
signature (inline, MIME-multipart, and other standards) and figure them
out.  OE and Outlook live off in their own little world that only does
one type that's not really documented anywhere in an RFC.  Still others
(mutt on Unix comes to mind) refuse to code in anything that isn't an
RFC-agreed-to-standard.  Still others rely on PGP-inline ASCII-armored
keys they just put in their Signature files.

And people wonder why digital signatures never took off.  Testosterone
apparently played a large role.  Engineers pissing on each other's
Wheaties if they didn't like the way the other guy did it.   Which lead
to users bickering about how it "looks" on their screens, which leads to
everyone just turning the silly things off.

Nate Duehr, RemoveMEnatespamspamBeGonenatetech.com

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@023507 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> A "solution" to the "problem" would be for Justin not to digitally sign
>> his messages to the list. As OE is quite likely the largest single
>> browser used this would be a quick way of getting his messages read.
>> There is probably a better method which allows signing and OE display.
>> I'll wait until the answerings die down and then see if there's anything
>> obvious in what i get.

> The problems with standards for digital e-mail signatures have been going
> on for years.

Lest it has become inobvious from the thread over time:

   The problem here is not with trying to use the digital signature but the
fact that adding it quite coincidentally makes Justin's emails unreadable by
perhaps half of all list members (ie probably all using OE and maybe others
too). The information is still there but is hard enough to read that many
just wont bother. Removing the signature fixes the readability problem. As
almost nobody here is liable to use the signature this may be considered an
acceptable fix 'for now". Odds are that the incompatibility/ies that caused
this will crop up in other ways in due course.


       RM



____________________________________________

2004\11\25@042201 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
This is a horrible bug in your mail clients.  Thunderbird shows them
just fine :)

Seriously though, this is a serious issue, and digital signing is not
something which people should have to disable for mailing lists etc.  It
should be something which is encoraged.

Can't this be fixed with an update or patch to the mailinglist software?

Justin.

Alan B. Pearce wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>_____________________________________________

2004\11\25@043245 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
Well I use both a certificate based signature and GPG inline.  I use the
certificate as default, but if I am replying to a person who uses
PGP/GPG then I will use that type of signing.

Nate Duehr wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> ______________________________________________

2004\11\25@043815 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?  Thunderbird
0.9 is stable, full of features and it will import all of your data from
Outlook / Outlook Express.  The only thing it lacks is a calender (yes
it reads newsgroups too).  To be honest, I can do without that for now,
OE doesn't have one anyway.

Also, a feature which I have to praise.. Thread view of email.  It's
great, I have a folder that all of my piclist mails come in to, then it
organises the messages of threads based on the subject etc.  It means I
can follow a mailing list much like you would a newsgroup.  Really
reduces the stress of all that mailing list mail coming in.

Justin.

P.s it's a pain not signing, I have to manually disable it each time I
make a post to this group :(

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@044115 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesspamspammit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseMEspammit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Justin Fielding
>Sent: 24 November 2004 17:14
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help
>
>
>This is a horrible bug in your mail clients.  Thunderbird shows them
>just fine :)
>
>Seriously though, this is a serious issue, and digital signing is not
>something which people should have to disable for mailing
>lists etc.  It
>should be something which is encoraged.
>

Does digital signing really add much when posting to public mailing
list?  I'm happy to be educated on the point, but I can only see it's
usefullness for confidential/important emails (not saying the list isn't
important, but you know what I mean).

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@044539 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>This is a horrible bug in your mail clients.
>Thunderbird shows them just fine :)
>
>Seriously though, this is a serious issue, and digital
>signing is not something which people should have to
>disable for mailing lists etc.  It should be something
>which is encoraged.
>
>Can't this be fixed with an update or patch to the
>mailinglist software?

You mean the software that is hosting the PICList? I doubt it, as it is
hosting the PICList for free, and we use a fair dose of their bandwidth,
without any recompense to them.

If you mean the Microsoft email software, well I guess you realise how soon
that is not likely to happen.

As to digital signatures, I think Nates bit on that probably hits the nail
squarely on the head.

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@053716 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I use IE and it's no problem at all - with or without using a mouse.
> Maybe others have their OE set up differently.
>
> My OE setup quotes the original message in my reply.
>
> Hit "reply to" (ctrl R)
>
> Message with ">" s  prepended *including sender's address* appears.

Yes, but not with OE Quotefix installed as I have.  On ballance, I still
think OE Quotefix helps more than it hurts.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@053828 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Justin Fielding wrote :

> Seriously though, this is a serious issue, and digital signing
> is not something which people should have to disable for
> mailing lists etc.

Why not just *enable* digital signing whenever you (and the
receivers !) realy *need* it ?

Does anyone else on the PIClist have digital signing enabled
(when posting)  ?

Jan-Erik.

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@054332 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I could see this one! :-)

> This is a horrible bug in your mail clients.  Thunderbird shows them just
> fine :)

Indeed.

> Can't this be fixed with an update or patch to the mailinglist software?

Trouble is it's not a mailing list problem per se. It's an interoperability
problem between email clients at each end. It would certainly be fixable by
using an intermediate processing stage but this falls outside the reasonable
requirements of a list server. At present you are the only person who has
this problem (apart from the zillion OE users receiving your messages) but
it shows that there is the potential for such things to turn up for many
people overnight if some new feature works badly with a large user base. In
this case the 'fault" is arguably really with the writers of your program
inasmuch as OE is a very established standard, like it or not, and they do
their users a dis-service if they write code that breaks OE, even if it's
OE's fault. I would have imagined that testing such things would be part of
introducing such a product. It may be that it is a combination of things in
your system that breaks OE.

Could you provide a detailed list of what you are using to send these
messages and we can then see if anyone else has a similar installation. (OS
with version etc, Mail client, other relevant software, PC type, other???)


regards


           Russell McMahon



____________________________________________

2004\11\25@055307 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?

probably because we are using what is corporately provided. Not all of us
are using personal systems or non MS systems to access the list.

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@062157 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

>Justin Fielding wrote :
>
>  
>
>>Seriously though, this is a serious issue, and digital signing
>>is not something which people should have to disable for
>>mailing lists etc.
>>    
>>
>
>Why not just *enable* digital signing whenever you (and the
>receivers !) realy *need* it ?
>  
>
That's like saying that you should only lock your car when you know
somebody is going to steal it!

>Does anyone else on the PIClist have digital signing enabled
>(when posting)  ?
>  
>
I have seen a few people using PGP type inline signing.  I don't relly
like this too much as it's messy for users who do not have PGP/GPG
functions in their mail client.

>Jan-Erik.
>
>_____________________________________________

2004\11\25@062600 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Well, I have just had to start administering our mail server, and it
has shown me what a big problem spam and worms are posing.  The way I
see things, if I sign all of my messages, then people instantly know
that this is from me, it is not spoofed and there is 0% chance that
there is any kind of worm of virus included.  It requires me to
provide my master password whenever sending an email, therefore worms
can't just send out junk to every address in my contacts (including
this list).  While I'm sure the chances are low, why even give them a
chance?

Justin,

P.s. Does this type of signing mess up anyones client view?  It's
messy, and to be honest it doesn't really verify that I am who I say
(unlike digital certificates).  Still it's something.

Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

|
|> {Original Message removed}

2004\11\25@064934 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 988 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms070405070602000501080902
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


       How does DomainKeys work with mailing lists?

Mailing lists that do not change the content or re-arrange or append
headers will be DomainKey compatible with no changes required. Mailing
lists that change the message and headers should re-sign the message
with their own private key and claim authorship of the message.

-----

Ok so we are not talking about domain keys. but the problems and
solutions are the same.

Justin,



Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>>Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?
>>    
>>
>
>probably because we are using what is corporately provided. Not all of us
>are using personal systems or non MS systems to access the list.
>
>_____________________________________________

2004\11\25@065134 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Nov 25, 2004, at 1:38 AM, Justin Fielding wrote:

> Also, a feature which I have to praise.. Thread view of email.

Huh.  I use Apple's Mail for a couple of mailing lists, and eagerly
tried
the thread view.  It works fine, but I find it very disorienting to not
have things in chronological order, and mostly only use it when there's
some large and active thread that I DON'T want to read (you can delete
a thread all at once, you see...)

BillW

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@072732 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Sure.  Im running Windows XP SP1 (I didn't have any linux CD's to hand
when I had to rebuild), The mail client is Thunderbird 0.9, The
certificate is Issued by Thawte.  There is no extra extension or plugin
needed for use of the certificate, it's a default config.  PC is just a
Sony laptop, I'm sure that won't make any difference to the equasion.

The email server runs Fedora Core 1 (I will be moving this to a
dedicated, Debian based mail server in the next few weeks).  The MTA is
qmail with the qmail-scanner modification to allow my incomming mail to
be scanned by ClamAV, SpamAssassin, and RBL checkes are applied.

Hope that helps.

>regards
>
>
>            Russell McMahon
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________

2004\11\25@084732 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <RemoveMEapptechEraseMEspamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


>     The problem here is not with trying to use the digital signature but
the
> fact that adding it quite coincidentally makes Justin's emails unreadable
by
> perhaps half of all list members (ie probably all using OE and maybe
others

Actually, no problem using OE here.  It is annoying since I need to click
more and can't see it in the preview panel, but there is no problem at all
reading it.

The message isn't encrypted or anything, it is just signed.  The MIME
signature is somewhat more intrusive than the old PGP signatures, or the GPG
signatures that the Linux guys like, but that is more of a problem with the
"help" you get from OE than the signature itself.

--McD


____________________________________________

2004\11\25@090208 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Rigby-Jones" <@spam@Michael.Rigby-JonesRemoveMEspamEraseMEbookham.com>
Subject: RE: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


> Does digital signing really add much when posting to public mailing
> list?  I'm happy to be educated on the point, but I can only see it's
> usefullness for confidential/important emails (not saying the list isn't
> important, but you know what I mean).

Digitally signed messages, at least MIME signatures, are a bit of a pain for
the reader, but you can see the need, and if it was an old PGP signature
which doesn't have the annoyance of MIME, I would agree that it should be
encouraged.

Basically, the problem is that it is trivially simple to spoof email
addresses.  If someone came on the list doing something annoying, he could
easily claim to be Justin or any of us.  By signing his messages, Justin is
proving that the message is from him.  The signature doesn't add ANYTHING to
the confidentiality - the message is still there in plain text.  What the
signature does is add a hash made up from Justin's private key and the
message.  In theory, you can check this to validate that the message was
from Justin and that it wasn't changed from the message Justin signed.

With a PGP signature or a GPG signature, this would simply be a block of
random characters after the message.  With MIME it is, too, except that it
is specially marked so that the mail client can recognize it as a signature.
That, in turn, allows the mail client (e.g. OE) to provide a "user friendly"
feature of making you jump through a few more hoops to read the message.
You can still open the attached message in OE, or view the message source in
OE, and voila! the message is there in plain text.  If you look at the
message source, it is followed by a block of apparently random characters
that constitute the signature.

I have to admit, although in principle, I support the idea of signing
messages, even though I know how to read signed messages, I tend not to,
since it is an annoyance.  Just like I always click don't reply when a
message requests a receipt.

--McD


____________________________________________

2004\11\25@091226 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan B. Pearce" <EraseMEA.B.Pearcespam@spam@rl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


> >Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?
>
> probably because we are using what is corporately provided. Not all of us
> are using personal systems or non MS systems to access the list.

And not all of us hate M$ enough to be willing to put up with the quirks of
some of these fringe email (and web) clients.  Face it, the world is using
M$.  Might not be the best in someone's opinion, but it's the easiest, and
for many of us, easiest=best.

--McD


____________________________________________

2004\11\25@093630 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Rigby-Jones" <@spam@Michael.Rigby-Jonesspam_OUTspam.....bookham.com>
>Subject: RE: [PIC]: Newbie needs help
>
>
>> Does digital signing really add much when posting to public mailing
>> list?  I'm happy to be educated on the point, but I can only
>see it's
>> usefullness for confidential/important emails (not saying the list
>> isn't important, but you know what I mean).
>

>{Original Message removed}

2004\11\25@094906 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Justin Fielding wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Well, I have just had to start administering our mail server, and it
> has shown me what a big problem spam and worms are posing.  The way I
> see things, if I sign all of my messages, then people instantly know
> that this is from me, it is not spoofed and there is 0% chance that
> there is any kind of worm of virus included.  It requires me to
> provide my master password whenever sending an email, therefore worms
> can't just send out junk to every address in my contacts (including
> this list).  While I'm sure the chances are low, why even give them a
> chance?
>
> Justin,
>
> P.s. Does this type of signing mess up anyones client view?  It's
> messy, and to be honest it doesn't really verify that I am who I say
> (unlike digital certificates).  Still it's something.

You can see above what it looked like in MS Outlook Express on Windows 2000.
Still annoyingly messy, but I would probably read it some of the time.
Can't you just lose the silly signature and send plain text like most
everyone else?

On a different but somewhat related subject:  I was looking thru the
archives and noticed something strange.  For most posters, the comment field
of the FROM address was shown in a listing of messages.  This is usually the
person's plain text name.  However, on my postings it used the user name
portion of my email address even though a perfectly valid comment with my
name was supplied.  In other words, my posts are listed as "olin_piclist"
instead of "Olin Lathrop".

I can't see the difference in what I'm sending out compared to what others
are sending out that works correctly.  Here is the appropriate line from one
of my messages as I received it back from the list:

 From: olin_piclist at embedincdotcom (Olin Lathrop)

(I obfuscated the actual address a bit).  Here is an example of identical
syntax as best I can tell that shows up correctly in the archives:

 From: A.B.Pearce at rldotacdotuk (Alan B. Pearce)

(same obfuscation applied).  What's the differnce?  What is causing the
archives web server to interpret these differently?  I'm not complaining
since I can't see how this hurts me, but it's very curious and the answer
might be illuminating.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@100618 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 19:14 +0200, Justin Fielding wrote:
> This is a horrible bug in your mail clients.  Thunderbird shows them
> just fine :)
>
> Seriously though, this is a serious issue, and digital signing is not
> something which people should have to disable for mailing lists etc.  It
> should be something which is encoraged.

Actually it SHOULD be disabled for mailing lists.

What does digital signing get you? It simply "proves" that the person
who sent me mail yesterday is the same person sending me mail today. For
someone like a lawyer that is a good thing. I just don't see the point
when it comes to a mailing list. Do I care if someone is using your
email address? No. It might produce one email that is blatently not you,
and then the admins will just set the account to mod.

Digital signing IMHO is absolutely USELESS on a public list, and just
wastes more bandwidth.

> Can't this be fixed with an update or patch to the mailinglist software?

No clue. I frankly don't want people using digital signatures on the
list and I certainly won't investigate this issue. Whether the other
admins think differently is up to them.

Now, with all that said, I STRONGLY suggest ANYONE using OE switch
today. There are SO many other FAR BETTER choices for mail clients. If
you use Linux, Ximian Evolution is an amazing piece of software
(especially the latest version).

For windows I'm not as familiar with the offerings, but I'm sure others
here will pipe up if someone requests some advice.

TTYL

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@101220 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:53 +0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?
>
> probably because we are using what is corporately provided. Not all of us
> are using personal systems or non MS systems to access the list.

And of those how many don't have web access? gmail works great with the
piclist. TTYL

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@105016 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:12 -0500, John J. McDonough wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan B. Pearce" <spamBeGoneA.B.PearceEraseMEspamrl.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help
>
>
> > >Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?
> >
> > probably because we are using what is corporately provided. Not all of us
> > are using personal systems or non MS systems to access the list.
>
> And not all of us hate M$ enough to be willing to put up with the quirks of
> some of these fringe email (and web) clients.  Face it, the world is using
> M$.  Might not be the best in someone's opinion, but it's the easiest, and
> for many of us, easiest=best.

Well, fortunately the world is changing. Been checking my web logs and
IE use HAS been dropping, not much mind you, but noticible. Half a year
ago it was 80%, now it's below 75%.

I realize that there will be a bias with the typical user to my website,
but I see it as a confirmation of other stories I've read claiming
similar changes in numbers.

Call me an optimist (although some would consider what I'm about to say
as being bad), but I think Mickeysoft has passed climax. There are so
many far better alternatives out there, and Mickeysoft knows it. That's
why you're hearing more and more about them implementing schemes to try
and lock as many people into their software as possible. They know
what's coming, they're trying to fight it the only way they've ever done
things.

FWIW I still still run one machine with an MS OS, win2k, and the only
reason for that is my company hasn't supplied me with a Linux client for
our VPN.


-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

____________________________________________

2004\11\25@105838 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> Does digital signing really add much when posting to public mailing
> list?  I'm happy to be educated on the point, but I can only see it's
> usefullness for confidential/important emails (not saying the list isn't
> important, but you know what I mean).

It just confirms you really are you -- if I find an open mail relay I
can send messages to the list that LOOK like they are from you unless
one examines the headers closely, and even then -- those are not
definitive, as you might have been travelling, etc.

How many bosses have you surprised this year by sending them an e-mail
from "presidentspamBeGonespamwhitehouse.gov"?  I make it a point as a mail admin to
remind at least one person above my pay-grade that e-mail as a medium
for secure or sensitive communications is relatively dangerous, at least
once a year.  This can be avoided by both digital signatures or the more
heavy-handed wrapping of the entire message in crypto.

Problem is, e-mail's convenience is so much greater than any perceived
security or authentication problems, that it's a forever-losing battle.

Probably the biggest risk in public lists is that someone could trash
your reputation.  Someone masquerading as you could make other people
mad at you and you'd never know it until they kicked you off the list or
other consequences happened.  With a proper digital signature system,
they could have checked to see if it was really you.

It's really amazing that we take it for granted that e-mails to mailing
lists are from a particular person -- there's virtually no way to really
determine that.  As a good example for PICList, let's say someone
decided that they wanted to bother Olin - they could just post to the
list as Olin through any of the thousands of open mail relays about the
Net and tick the Admins off again at Olin.  The admins, being human,
probably never check long headers in such situations, and Olin would be
in trouble for something he didn't do.  Easy as pie.  Mailing list
software in general is extremely open to where and what you send it as
long as your From: header is subscribed to the list.

Of course, the opposite is also true -- there are those who wish to post
to some lists anonymously, too.  And there are certainly good times and
places for that to be allowed.

I've been struggling with the "how to get digital signatures more widely
accepted" thoughts for years -- the only systems that truly work well
for large groups of people today are the closed systems -- like when a
corporation mandates that all users will have a specific type of mail
software, and then they set up appropriate keys for whatever native
encrypting and signing engine is built into that software.  Many times,
 just by the sheer size of that company, people that do business with
them sometimes end up standardizing on the same software.  The problem I
have with this is that usually that means everyone picks the "lowest
common denominator" software from a proprietary vendor like Microsoft
and not a standards-based solution.  One very large group of people that
has it figured out also is the Debian Linux Project -- at least for
official package maintainers and developers.  They require a GPG key be
signed by other Debian people already in the project using proper
identification techniques during the keysigning and the developer's key
ends up in their public keyring so it can be used for LOTS of things,
e-mail signing and encryption being two main uses.  But virtually no
Debian developer would be caught dead using OE or Outlook, both of which
can't handle GPG keys very well anyway.

That's another "gotcha" of digital signatures -- the "public" part of
the framework.  Where does one go to find "anyone's" public key?  There
are both public PGP/GPG servers as well as "pay for the privelege"
servers for other types of certificates (like X.509) from places like
Verisign -- but ultimately none of them is an overall worldwide
infrastructure anywhere near the size that would be required if
*everyone* signed all correspondance digitally.

I just realized the tag's still [PIC] on this.  Sorry.  If we need to
move over to [OT] feel free -- I never know if the person that asked the
question has [OT] turned on in these scenarios.

--
Nate Duehr, RemoveMEnate@spam@spamspamBeGonenatetech.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@111209 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> =======================================================================
> This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
> information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
> law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
> not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
> person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
> received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
> forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
> No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
> services.
> =======================================================================

p.s. The above disclaimer is worthless, and yet many IT Departments
require them.  They've been shot down multiple times under U.S. law as
an invalid contract... there's no "acceptance" or "negotiation" stages
(similar to the reasons that many "shrink-wrap" licenses are also being
thrown out in court cases), so they're non-binding and a total waste of
bandwidth.  If your company lawyers require them, they're idiots and
don't understand how to apply case law.

All they can really be used for is threats of legal action against
someone if they inadvertently received your message, but the threat is a
paper tiger and anyone who WANTS to read your e-mail illicitly --
already knows this.

These disclaimer messages say to your savvy customers who know what's
going on with e-mail law, that your legal department wishes to withhold
the right to hold an unloaded gun to their heads.  Which, of course is
probably not a good way to treat customers if you care to keep them.

I say - there's a good idea.  If you're someone's customer and they send
you one of these silly disclaimers, ask them to stop as they're
threatening you.  Be irrational about it, since the message is already
irrational/illogical anyway.  Tell them you won't do business with them
any more if they continue to send them!  Ahhh... civil disobedience.
Such fun.

--
Nate Duehr, .....nate@spam@spamEraseMEnatetech.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@113737 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olin Lathrop" <.....olin_piclistRemoveMEspamembedinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help


> I can't see the difference in what I'm sending out compared to what others
> are sending out that works correctly.  Here is the appropriate line from
one
> of my messages as I received it back from the list:

Olin

When I look at the message source I receive via email, I do see a
difference:

Your comment is in parentheses ( )  and everyone else's is in carets < >

Well, worse than that .... more often it is

  <email addy> "comment"

Where yours is

  email address (comment)

Might not be so easy to spot after it's been web-ized

--McD


____________________________________________

2004\11\25@124006 by olin_piclist

face picon face
John J. McDonough wrote:
> When I look at the message source I receive via email, I do see a
> difference:
>
> Your comment is in parentheses ( )  and everyone else's is in carets
> < >
>
> Well, worse than that .... more often it is
>
>    <email addy> "comment"
>
> Where yours is
>
>    email address (comment)

I just looked at the header of your message as it came to me via the list
and it was:

 From: mcd at is-sixsigmadotcom (John J. McDonough)

Even if the list server is editing the FROM line, they all still ultimately
appear the same way.  I'm assuming the archiver recieves its message from
the list server like everyone else does.  I'm also using Outlook Express
like many other people and not doing anything special that I know of.

I just went and looked around in the archives again.  There was a message
where you replied to Russell which also quoted the FROM line.  It was:

 From: "Russell McMahon" <apptech at paradisedotnetdotnz>

and your message just now replying to me quoted my FROM address as:

 From: "Olin Lathrop" <olin_piclist at embedincdotcom>

So something still doesn't add up.  Apparently the FROM line gets edited in
one or more places, but the result from my messages has the same syntax as
those from others where the name shows up correctly in the archives.

Again, I'm not complaining because I don't see how it matters, but it is
curious and I'd like to understand it.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@143944 by Robert B.

flavicon
face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Fielding" <.....justinfieldingSTOPspamspam@spam@yahoo.co.uk


> Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?  Thunderbird
> 0.9 is stable, full of features and it will import all of your data

I beg to differ about the alleged "stability".  I've tried using thunderbird
repeatedly on two separate WinXP systems, and on both systems there are
annoying glitches.  For example, on my windows XP desktop thunderbird often
refuses to check for mail, even after asking it to.  It's like it freezes up
and just won't open any sockets.  I won't completely rule out user error
here, but I've been through the options set up more than once, and it
happens only often enough to be a problem.  On the linux/bsd boxes
thunderbird runs quite well, and I use it whenever a GUI is loaded.

So perhaps the *real* question is why do I still use windows?  It was
required at the university, but now that I'm out I ask myself that every
day, and am in the process of converting over to FreeBSD.  I've even taken
to writing lengthy reports using VI, and rapidly become annoyed when I have
to use the mouse for anything at all.  (I was pleased to see threads along
both of these lines last week)



____________________________________________

2004\11\25@144508 by Peter L. Peres

picon face

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> P.s. Does this type of signing mess up anyones client view?  It's
>> messy, and to be honest it doesn't really verify that I am who I say
>> (unlike digital certificates).  Still it's something.

I did not notice any problems using pine, thunderbird, mozilla or opera
(testing).

> You can see above what it looked like in MS Outlook Express on Windows 2000.
> Still annoyingly messy, but I would probably read it some of the time.
> Can't you just lose the silly signature and send plain text like most
> everyone else?

Er, most people likely cannot see what it looked like to you because the
quoted piece looks ok here. It is probably a font/encoding issue and you
(and probably other OE users who have the same settings) are the only ones
seeing it.

{Quote hidden}

You have set OE to filter piclist through that handle probably (folder or
filter rule name or whatever OE uses). Your headers look like this in a
plain text mail reader (pine) (I obfuscated the address as you did, with
DOT):

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:49:02 -0500
From: Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@embedincDOTcom>
Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <piclistEraseMEspam@spam@mit.edu>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <RemoveMEpiclistspamspamBeGonemit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Newbie needs help

OE takes Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistKILLspamspam@spam@embedinc.com> and smartly makes it to

From: olin_piclist at embedincdotcom (Olin Lathrop)

as you noticed. On other mailreaders this is called a role (that of poster
to/from this list). I am sure that there is a mickeymouse name for it
(look for something that begins with Micro... ) and that you can change it
somewhere in OE.

Digital signatures should start being used everywhere slowly slowly. And
then they won't be enough and only crypted mail will be acceptable.

Peter
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@144518 by Peter L. Peres

picon face

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Justin Fielding wrote:

> P.s it's a pain not signing, I have to manually disable it each time I
> make a post to this group :(
>
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> >CC Justin (no mouse actions were consumed in the preparation of this
> >message).
> >
> >This is the first and only message of Justin's that I can see "normally".
> >
> >Of the replies that I have received offlist, about 50% see Justin's messages
> >as I do - a blank subject field with he signature and message body in two
> >separate attachments. These seem to mainly be OE users but that's not
> >certain (not all have said).
> >
> >Some people are seeing the attachments inside an attachment - enough to
> >drive the sanest crazy.

I think I know what the problem is. OE disregards a missing MIME type
declaration in the headers and assumes the message is MIME encoded
multipart if the first part of the message constains text like:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

which resembles a MIME part header. Justin's setting sent just such lines.
Thus OE split the message into 'attachments. Actually receivers of this
message may not be able to read these lines because of that.

-----END PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This would be just another 'helpful' heuristic from the OE makers. Like
the one with [RE]: (remember that one) ?

Justin: you can cause your mta to strip these lines for this
destination only. The server operators could too (use grep or whatever)

hope this helps,
Peter
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@151137 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> and your message just now replying to me quoted my FROM address as:
>
>  From: "Olin Lathrop" <olin_piclist at embedincdotcom>
>
> So something still doesn't add up.  Apparently the FROM line gets edited in
> one or more places, but the result from my messages has the same syntax as
> those from others where the name shows up correctly in the archives.

As others have noted, your From: like looks like

email@address (User Name)

If I were to reply to your mail, my mailer would rewrite that as

User Name <email@address>

This is why your address shows up differently in some replies.

Parentheses indicate a "comment."  This is why your User Name doesn't
show up in some places.  In the "User Name <email@address>" format,
User Name is *not* a comment.

--
John W. Temples, III
____________________________________________

2004\11\25@151357 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
I use windows because:

1. I have a licence for XP which came with my laptop, why not use it,
it's paid for.
2. I previously had FC2 as my OS, but, it fell over with a filesystem
error and lost half of the HDD.  Luckily I managed to recover the home
directory.  When I went to re-format the laptop, my FC2 cd's had gone
bad (I am constantly amazed at how many CDR's and even DVD-R's I have,
which over the last year have just decided that they don't want to be
read anymore).  I would have to wait 3 weeks to get hold of any Linux
distro so I just put winXP on it and I can't be bothered to go through
another re-install to switch back to linux.

I have not had any trouble with Thunderbird under XP.  Did you try the
latest version?  I remember I tried 0.7 and it was awlful, 0.9 seems
great though.  Sometimes you tell it to collect mail, and although the
status bar at the bottom doesn't tell you it's collecting, it does.

Robert B. wrote:

>{Original Message removed}

2004\11\25@155359 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

>So something still doesn't add up.  Apparently the FROM line gets edited in
>one or more places, but the result from my messages has the same syntax as
>those from others where the name shows up correctly in the archives.
>  
>
Do you have a "Reply-To:" set in OE in the window where you identify
yourself?

I seem to recall from discussion on the mailman mailing list (ironic, a
mailing list for mailing list software - isn't it?) a while back that
mailman was maybe doing some funky things with Reply-To.

--
Nate Duehr, natespam_OUTspam@spam@natetech.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@091738 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
> Er, most people likely cannot see what it looked like to you because
> the quoted piece looks ok here. It is probably a font/encoding issue
> and you (and probably other OE users who have the same settings) are
> the only ones seeing it.

That's why I replied in plain text format.

> You have set OE to filter piclist through that handle probably
> (folder or filter rule name or whatever OE uses).

I don't have any filters whatsoever set up in OE.

{Quote hidden}

Hmm, that could be.  However, both are common and legal syntaxes, and I'm
using generic OE to generate my FROM line just like lots of other people
are.  I still don't understand why I'm the only one the archiver doesn't
understand.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@114640 by Peter L. Peres

picon face

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Nate Duehr wrote:

> Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
>> So something still doesn't add up.  Apparently the FROM line gets edited
>> in
>> one or more places, but the result from my messages has the same syntax as
>> those from others where the name shows up correctly in the archives.
>>
> Do you have a "Reply-To:" set in OE in the window where you identify
> yourself?
>
> I seem to recall from discussion on the mailman mailing list (ironic, a
> mailing list for mailing list software - isn't it?) a while back that mailman
> was maybe doing some funky things with Reply-To.

Most list software will delete a user-supplied Reply-To and substitute its
own. Same for Errors-To. The question is whether it rewrites/deletes From:
to point at, the op's From, or the op's Reply-To if there was one.

Peter
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@140746 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> OE takes Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistspamRemoveMEembedinc.com> and smartly makes
>> it to
>>
>> From: olin_piclist at embedincdotcom (Olin Lathrop)
>
> Hmm, that could be.  However, both are common and legal syntaxes

On what do you base the assertion that it's common?  I just grepped
through seven years of email, I find that out of 2743 unique email
addresses, only 113 have the (User Name) format.

> I still don't understand why I'm the only one the archiver doesn't
> understand.

Do you believe that anyone other than you uses the (User Name) format
on the PICLIST?

--
John W. Temples, III
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@150337 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
piclist@xargs.com wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I just have to say, It doesn't matter whether it is common or not.  If
it's a legal syntax then the software should handle it.  It seems we are
just seeing the result of crappy programming (if it is a legal syntax).

>
> --
> John W. Temples, III
> ______________________________________________

2004\11\26@154011 by madscientist

picon face
absolutely!  i remember there is one microsoft email program that
doesn't display anything if an email starts with a blank line!  there
are several examples of mail readers not following standards, including
ignoring or mishandling the mime types, which is how some viruses work. i.e. it's declared as a mime type text etc., but has a .exe or similar
file name so the system treats it as a program while the email package
treats it as something harmless and doesn't virus scan it when it
should.  i think ".pip" is the most common, i have several examples of
this saved (i save the viruses i get, in a well marked folder, it lets
you know your' virus scanner is at least seeing the old viruses
correctly, and they are pc viruses on a mac so they are harmless with
reasonable care.  that and i'm the only one who uses my computer!, i'd
be very much more careful with any virus stored on a machine that it can
infect).  
standards are a good thing, that's why there are so many of them (;)).  
seriously though, many if not most internet programs don't meet all the
standards properly which is why professional website developers usually
test their pages with several browsers on different types of machines,
often finding odd incompatibilities other than the ones microsoft has
tried to build into their products.

Justin Fielding wrote:
------
> I just have to say, It doesn't matter whether it is common or not.  If
> it's a legal syntax then the software should handle it.  It seems we are
> just seeing the result of crappy programming (if it is a legal syntax).
-------

-- “Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question:
is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience
asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must
take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular- but one
must take it simply because it is right.” : Martin Luther King Jr.
1929-1968 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4614717,00.html>

___________________________________________

2004\11\26@160358 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Justin Fielding wrote:

> I just have to say, It doesn't matter whether it is common or not.  If it's a
> legal syntax then the software should handle it.  It seems we are just seeing
> the result of crappy programming (if it is a legal syntax).

It is legal syntax.  However, text enclosed in parentheses is a
comment, the meaning of which is undefined, and RFC 2822 recommends it
not be used:

"Note: Some legacy implementations used the simple form where the
addr-spec appears without the angle brackets, but included the name of
the recipient in parentheses as a comment following the addr-spec.
Since the meaning of the information in a comment is unspecified,
implementations SHOULD use the full name-addr form of the mailbox,
instead of the legacy form, to specify the display name associated
with a mailbox.  Also, because some legacy implementations interpret
the comment, comments generally SHOULD NOT be used in address fields
to avoid confusing such implementations."

--
John W. Temples, III
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@170115 by olin_piclist

face picon face
part 1 333 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded 7bit)

Nate Duehr wrote:
> Do you have a "Reply-To:" set in OE in the window where you identify
> yourself?

No, it's blank.  I've attached a screen shot of the settings window.  There
have got to be many others doing the same thing, yet the archiver only gets
confused with my messages.


part 2 7883 bytes content-type:image/gif; (decode)


part 3 79 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

____________________________________________

2004\11\26@172352 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
Yep we have had sooooo many examples of perfectly valid HTML/CSS not
working properly in IE or Firefox.  I have to say it's normally IE which
messes things up.  If something doesn't work in firefox, you can be that
after we have looked in to it, the problem is actually that the code is
not valid HTML at all.  It's just some additional 'feature' Microsoft
have added on to their interpretation of HTML (hence why it works in IE
and not others).  We have done pretty well for a couple of self taught
web coders trying to build a commercial site.  It's not realistic though
for us to have a machine with each OS version and also browser revision
to test on.  We still get some users moaning, most of them on win9x and
IE4.  Any future projects will definatly be outsourced to Indian
development companies.

Justin.

the madscientist wrote:

{Quote hidden}

____________________________________________

2004\11\26@175246 by olin_piclist

face picon face
>> I still don't understand why I'm the only one the archiver doesn't
>> understand.
>
> Do you believe that anyone other than you uses the (User Name) format
> on the PICLIST?

But all I'm doing is using Outlook Express on Windows 2000.  Certainly I
can't be the only one doing that.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@183136 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> Do you believe that anyone other than you uses the (User Name) format
>> on the PICLIST?
>
> But all I'm doing is using Outlook Express on Windows 2000.  Certainly I
> can't be the only one doing that.

Perhaps there's some setting somewhere that you've changed and don't
know about, or perhaps your antivirus software is rewriting the From:
header, or perhaps your ISP's SMTP server is rewriting the From:
header.  Try sending an email from different client software on the
same PC and see if it has the same problem.  Sniff the network traffic
and see what state the From: is in when it leaves your PC.

--
John W. Temples, III
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@190226 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
piclist@xargs.com wrote:
> Perhaps there's some setting somewhere that you've changed and don't
> know about, or perhaps your antivirus software is rewriting the From:
> header, or perhaps your ISP's SMTP server is rewriting the From:
> header.  Try sending an email from different client software on the
> same PC and see if it has the same problem.  Sniff the network traffic
> and see what state the From: is in when it leaves your PC.

I did sniff around a bit and discovered that my internal SMTP server is
apparently rewriting the FROM line.  It reads it using either syntax,
possibly edits the comment to add site or company information (which it
doesn't do in this case) and writes it back out using the ADDRESS (COMMENT)
format.

I've suspended outgoing mail and will intercept this message in the output
queue and manually edit it to use the "USER NAME" <ADDRESS> format.  It will
be interesting to see if that makes a difference.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@194712 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> I've suspended outgoing mail and will intercept this message in the output
> queue and manually edit it to use the "USER NAME" <ADDRESS> format.  It will
> be interesting to see if that makes a difference.

Your From: reached me correctly formatted.  BTW, the quotes aren't required.

--
John W. Temples, III
____________________________________________

2004\11\26@195503 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

>I've suspended outgoing mail and will intercept this message in the output
>queue and manually edit it to use the "USER NAME" <ADDRESS> format.  It will
>be interesting to see if that makes a difference.
>  
>
If you need a temporary mail server to send outbound SMTP through for
testing and know what public IP you'd be coming out from, I can set one
of the servers I admin up to allow you to relay through it, if it helps
any for your tests.

Of course if I caught you spamming through it after that I'd have to
hunt you down!  ;-)

Contact me off-list if you have need of such a test.  Server is a
standard postfix MTA with no re-writing going on in it at all.

Nate
____________________________________________

2004\11\27@004021 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 26, 2004, at 11:07 AM, EraseMEpiclistRemoveMEspamSTOPspamxargs.com wrote:
>
> Do you believe that anyone other than you uses the (User Name) format
> on the PICLIST?
>
My preferred address would be:
       William "Chops" Westfield <foo@bar>

When I first started using it, it generated some discussion amoung the
RFC723 authors as to whether it was legal or not.  Seems that nicknames
in quotes were clearly defined:
       "william chops westfield" foo@bar
as well as explicit marking of the actual address with <>:
       william chops westfield <foo@bar>
But it wasn't obvious that the "marking" would allow the use of embedded
quotes within the unmarked area.  They quickly decided in my favor, and
the broken MIT mailer (COMSAT) was fixed to handle it correctly.

It survived the transition to rfc822 and TCP without additional effort.

But assorted microsoft products don't like it, and end up stripping the
quotes or otherwise getting confused (occasionally QUITE confused.  
Sigh.)
And I don't have the stomach or inclination to argue with microsoft
(they
obviously don't care about following standards even in cases where it's
important, I figure there's zero hope that they'd do anything based on a
fine point of detail...)

Sigh.
BillW

____________________________________________

2004\11\27@034530 by Rob Hamerling

flavicon
face


Justin Fielding wrote:
> Yep we have had sooooo many examples of perfectly valid HTML/CSS not
> working properly in IE or Firefox.

If you want to continue this thread, please use another [tag].
Rob.

--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL phone +31-347-322822
homepage: http://www.robh.nl/
____________________________________________

2004\11\27@070151 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
part 1 5502 bytes content-type:multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms090704030606020707010309
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

lol, someone had to moan eventually.  Imagine you are chatting with some
friends and as the conversation goes on, the topic naturally changes.  I
can't imagine someone saying 'You are not on the original topic, please
go somewhere else if you want to carry on chatting'.  If they did I can
imagine they would be told to **** off ;)

Justin.

Rob Hamerling wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--------------ms090704030606020707010309
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
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--------------ms090704030606020707010309--


part 2 79 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

____________________________________________

2004\11\27@070307 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
Yep, I see your posts and FROM header just fine too.

Justin.

Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>_____________________________________________

2004\11\27@085734 by olin_piclist

face picon face
piclist@xargs.com wrote:
>> I've suspended outgoing mail and will intercept this message in the
>> output queue and manually edit it to use the "USER NAME" <ADDRESS>
>> format.  It will be interesting to see if that makes a difference.
>
> Your From: reached me correctly formatted.  BTW, the quotes aren't
> required.

I checked in the archives, and it showed up correctly.  I guess that's one
mystery solved.  Thanks for your help.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\27@090350 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:
> If you need a temporary mail server to send outbound SMTP through for
> testing and know what public IP you'd be coming out from, I can set
> one
> of the servers I admin up to allow you to relay through it, if it
> helps
> any for your tests.

That'd be great.  I've got a side business selling home mortgages, online
drugs, various ways to enhance your anatomy, and I also help out poor
destitute widows of former Nigerian oil ministers with $20M in the bank.
That would be a great way to advertise.  What an idea!

(Actually thanks for the offer, but this mystery has been solved.  I now
have to decide what, if anything, I feel like doing about it.)


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\27@094303 by Justin Fielding

flavicon
face
Move to Thunderbird 0.9 if you want to make a change.  I have not had
any problems with it.  I have not looked back since installing it.  The
only things it lacks are tasks/calender which I didn't use much in
Outlook anyway, so there is no loss for me.

Justin.

Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>_____________________________________________

2004\11\27@101038 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Justin Fielding wrote:
> Move to Thunderbird 0.9 if you want to make a change.  I have not had
> any problems with it.  I have not looked back since installing it.
> The only things it lacks are tasks/calender which I didn't use much in
> Outlook anyway, so there is no loss for me.

If I do anything it has to be done to the SMTP server, not my mail client.
Outlook Express is producing the correct FROM line, which the SMTP server
changes.  Therefore any other mail client will run into the same problem.  I
haven't looked yet, but it's probably a trivial change on the SMTP server.
I just have to feel like bothering to do it.  As I said before, this was
more of an intellectual curiosity than a real problem.  However, now that I
know the SMTP server is doing something non-standard I have more of a reason
to fix it.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________

2004\11\29@020539 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

sorry for the silly question, but what does FC2 stand for?

Imre

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Justin Fielding wrote:

> 2. I previously had FC2 as my OS, but, it fell over with a filesystem error
> and lost half of the HDD.  Luckily I managed to recover the home directory.
> When I went to re-format the laptop, my FC2 cd's had gone bad (I am
> constantly amazed at how many CDR's and even DVD-R's I have, which over the
> last year have just decided that they don't want to be read anymore).  I
____________________________________________

2004\11\29@110632 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 08:05 +0100, dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for the silly question, but what does FC2 stand for?
>
> Imre

Fedora Core 2.

Redhat decided to split it's Linux biz into two parts, Redhat being the
"commercial" product with support, Fedore Core being the "hobbyist"
branch. (Redhat 9.0 was the last "hobbyist" version of Redhat).

Fedora Core 2 was the second one, FAR better then FC1. FC3 just recently
came out, it's actually better then FC2, not as huge a jump as there was
between FC1 and FC2, but still an improvement making it worthy to
upgrade.

TTYL


-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

____________________________________________

2004\11\29@122248 by DJMurray
flavicon
face
FC2 stands for Fedora Core 2, which is a non-industrial version of
RedHat 9 (RH9) Linux. By non-industrial, I mean that it has not been as
thoroughly tested and, therefore, not recommended for mission-critical
applications.

I'm running both RH9 on one system and FC2 on another. I prefer FC2
slightly over RH9.

Dennis

dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> ______________________________________________

2004\11\29@134734 by Peter L. Peres

picon face


On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:

> Hi,
>
> sorry for the silly question, but what does FC2 stand for?

Red Hat "Fedora Core 2" Linux distribution.

Peter
____________________________________________

2004\11\30@031230 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face

Thank you for the info. Yet another TLA... I'm using Sid and Fedora is not
so known out here than RedHat was before.

Imre

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> ______________________________________________


'[PIC]: Newbie Needs Help'
2005\01\06@093556 by techy fellow
picon face
Hi Eisermann,

Thanks so much for the info and the schematic file (I received it). I will study it closely.

Dominic, many thanks to you too for explaining how to make use of AC 50/ 60 cycles as counter. Very useful. Initially, I thought of using DS1306 or 1307 timer chip to do the Seconds counting which is an overkill for this project.

cheers,
Davis

"Eisermann, Phil [Ridg/CO]" <spamBeGonepeisermaspam@spam@ridgid.com> wrote:
RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspammit.edu wrote:
> I will visit all the links as advised while waiting for my AC opto
> Triac relay board to arrive. By the way, how to count 50/60 Cycle
> power to have a very accurate time base ?

I sent a schematic in pdf to your yahoo account. there are several
ways to count 50/60Hz cycles of the mains. I really like opto-couplers
designed for this, if isolation is needed. For a hobby project, I can't
see any good reason NOT to have isolation. It only uses three resistors
plus a H11AA-series opto or similar. The output is inverted (goes high
at zero crossing), but that's usually not a problem.

If you have a transformer, you can sense zero crossing on the low side,
but the transformer output won't be in phase with the line voltage.
That may not matter for your application.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...