how am I supposed to work without getting my daily dose of chit-chat?! :))

Post a reply to this message

and now?

Post a reply to this message

yes, I have a thumbdrive.  I also got broadband and found it'd be more 
practical to simply email me a zip that contained exe in the name... O_o

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:479a157f$1@news.povray.org...

> I'm quite sure this Lotus newsgroups thing won't last much..  BTW, I think
> I succeeded in turning messages to text only.  is that right?


     Yep!  :)


     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

and BTW, that was my real self, getting in the way... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> Have you tryed "cheating"?

I saw a great tool for tunneling IP over DNS.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> how am I supposed to work without getting my daily dose of chit-chat?! :))

Perhaps you have just to propose the use of the newsreaders. Tell them how much
your work would be affected, when you are suffering withdrawal symptoms. Do you
think that would work? ;)

          bluetree

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:479a1967@news.povray.org...
> and BTW, that was my real self, getting in the way... ;)


    LOL! I've done that in the past...  ;)

    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:479a1345$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:05:28 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
>> does it look good to
>> you?
>
> No, because it's posting both text and HTML. <barf>

     Eh? How did you know that Jim?

       ~Steve~


>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

I'll try that as a last resort... ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:38:50 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> I'll try that as a last resort... ;)

If you work in IT, you might point out that many vendors provide support 
for their products through private news servers.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:59:43 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> BTW, I think
> I succeeded in turning messages to text only.  is that right?

Yep. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> and now?

Now it's better. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:20:49 +0000, St. wrote:

> Eh? How did you know that Jim?

Because my newsreader doesn't render HTML, so the HTML code shows up as 
HTML code.

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:479a213c$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:20:49 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>> Eh? How did you know that Jim?
>
> Because my newsreader doesn't render HTML, so the HTML code shows up as
> HTML code.

     Ah, I see. Obviously, OE hasn't got this feature. <Must try XNews again 
sometime, that was quite good iirc>

       ~Steve~


>
> :-)
>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:24:23 +0000, St. wrote:

>      Ah, I see. Obviously, OE hasn't got this feature. <Must try XNews
>      again
> sometime, that was quite good iirc>

Yes, XNews is quite popular.  OE, as I recall, doesn't follow a lot of 
the standards by default, with regards to default message types and 
things like that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Ric### [at] stjgovbr wrote:
> yes, I have a thumbdrive.

This might help: http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/thunderbird_portable

Best part about using something like that is that you don't have to 
install anything. :)

-- 
-Ian

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/25 11:59:
> executables are blocked in the proxy server.  You don't get a chance to 
> save as anything, all you get is a standard blocked screen or 
> time out in the case of ftp.  I actually downloaded the Windows version of 
> Thunderbird yesterday and zipped with the same name plus zip sufix.
> Well, it turns out that Gmail identified it as Mime type application/zip 
> and the proxy either got that or simply scanned the whole name for exe and
> found it.
> 
> How dumb am I getting or are the admins getting too smart? :P
> 
> I'm quite sure this Lotus newsgroups thing won't last much..  BTW, I think 
> I succeeded in turning messages to text only.  is that right?
> 
Have you tried some other, less known, compression formats: BH, SIT, RAR, 7Z, A, 
ACE, ARC, TZ, GZ, GZA, LHA, TAR,...

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Taste cannot be controlled by law.
Thomas Jefferson

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Have you tried some other, less known, compression formats: BH, SIT, RAR, 7Z, A,
> ACE, ARC, TZ, GZ, GZA, LHA, TAR,...

You know, the sad part is that I'm on a Linux box.  Could've just typed tar czf
foo.tgz and be done with it.  But I wanted to do it the dumb graphical way.  So
I just relied on the defaults.  That means "File-Roller" took the executable
name and just added zip.  The exe continued.

Another option would be to rename the file to be uploaded, eliminating the exe
sufix.  Not possible on Windows, but I've done it several times in the past on
Linux.  Like when sending tgzed mp3 to gmail. :)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escribió:
> executables are blocked in the proxy server.  You don't get a chance to 
> save as anything, all you get is a standard blocked screen or 
> time out in the case of ftp.  I actually downloaded the Windows version of 
> Thunderbird yesterday and zipped with the same name plus zip sufix.
> Well, it turns out that Gmail identified it as Mime type application/zip 
> and the proxy either got that or simply scanned the whole name for exe and
> found it.

FYI, GMail doesn't let you send exes, and checks the *contents* of zip 
files for exes.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> FYI, GMail doesn't let you send exes, and checks the *contents* of zip
> files for exes.

yeah, that's right.  Learned it the bad way, when I tried to send the file to
some friends so that they sent it back renamed... :/

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/26 10:31:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Have you tried some other, less known, compression formats: BH, SIT, RAR, 7Z, A,
>> ACE, ARC, TZ, GZ, GZA, LHA, TAR,...
> 
> You know, the sad part is that I'm on a Linux box.  Could've just typed tar czf
> foo.tgz and be done with it.  But I wanted to do it the dumb graphical way.  So
> I just relied on the defaults.  That means "File-Roller" took the executable
> name and just added zip.  The exe continued.
> 
> Another option would be to rename the file to be uploaded, eliminating the exe
> sufix.  Not possible on Windows, but I've done it several times in the past on
> Linux.  Like when sending tgzed mp3 to gmail. :)
> 
> 
Very easy to change or remove the extention on windows. You just neet to set 
explorer to not hide known extentions. Always the first thing I do on a new install.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
   I was making love to this girl and she started crying. I said,  "Are you 
going to hate yourself in the morning?" She said, "No, I hate Myself now."
	Rodney Dangerfield

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Very easy to change or remove the extention on windows. You just neet to set
> explorer to not hide known extentions. Always the first thing I do on a new install.

really?!  It's possible to have a Windows file with actually no extension?  I
don't mean hiding the extension from view, but actually having none...

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:39:05 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> really?!  It's possible to have a Windows file with actually no  
> extension?  I don't mean hiding the extension from view, but
> actually having none...

Of course it is. What made you think otherwise?


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

"Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:39:05 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > really?!  It's possible to have a Windows file with actually no
> > extension?  I don't mean hiding the extension from view, but
> > actually having none...
>
> Of course it is. What made you think otherwise?

old times?  I remember at some point Windows didn't let it be done.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:07:13 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:39:05 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom>  
>> wrote:
>> > really?!  It's possible to have a Windows file with actually no
>> > extension?  I don't mean hiding the extension from view, but
>> > actually having none...
>>
>> Of course it is. What made you think otherwise?
>
> old times?  I remember at some point Windows didn't let it be done.

At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

"Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:07:13 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > "Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:39:05 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom>
> >> wrote:
> >> > really?!  It's possible to have a Windows file with actually no
> >> > extension?  I don't mean hiding the extension from view, but
> >> > actually having none...
> >>
> >> Of course it is. What made you think otherwise?
> >
> > old times?  I remember at some point Windows didn't let it be done.
>
> At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.

perhaps it did, but not obviously.  Alain said he had to set up some
configuration in order to do it.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:21:33 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:07:13 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom>  
>> wrote:
>> > "Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:39:05 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > really?!  It's possible to have a Windows file with actually no
>> >> > extension?  I don't mean hiding the extension from view, but
>> >> > actually having none...
>> >>
>> >> Of course it is. What made you think otherwise?
>> >
>> > old times?  I remember at some point Windows didn't let it be done.
>>
>> At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.
>
> perhaps it did, but not obviously.  Alain said he had to set up some
> configuration in order to do it.

That is a problem caused by the default options in Explorer. It was not an  
issue back in the days of MS-DOS and Windows 3.x, nor is it an issue if  
you use the command console in Windows XP/Vista.


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/26 13:21:
> "Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:07:13 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> "Fredrik Eriksson" <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:39:05 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> really?!  It's possible to have a Windows file with actually no
>>>>> extension?  I don't mean hiding the extension from view, but
>>>>> actually having none...
>>>> Of course it is. What made you think otherwise?
>>> old times?  I remember at some point Windows didn't let it be done.
>> At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.
> 
> perhaps it did, but not obviously.  Alain said he had to set up some
> configuration in order to do it.
> 
> 
Explorer's default to always hiding the extentions that are registered.
To change:
Open an explorer window.
In the menu, chose "Tools"
Chose "Folders options"
Select the "Display" tab
Scroll down to "Hide extentions of known files types"
Uncheck the associated box.
Click "OK"

A few lines lower, you can supress the anoying "shortcut to..." from been added 
to the name of new shortcuts.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you resign the fact that printing 
uses CMYK instead of RGB to one of those tests God gave to Job; otherwise life 
would be too painful to go on.
     -- Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html
> 
> I've used this myself when I absolutely needed the ability to use NNTP 
> and the port was blocked.

Umm... no thanks.  I'd rather not lose my job if they find out I've 
installed custom software to bypass their security :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

bluetree wrote:
>> Those darned admins.  At my job, they block the NNTP protocol, so I
>> can't read ng with anything other than the web interface :(
> 
> ^^
> They want you to work at work. ;)

Anyone who thinks that POV-Ray isn't work doesn't love it enough :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html
> >
> > I've used this myself when I absolutely needed the ability to use NNTP
> > and the port was blocked.
>
> Umm... no thanks.  I'd rather not lose my job if they find out I've
> installed custom software to bypass their security :)

yes.  That's why I thought it'd be great to use Lotus Notes... :))

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
> Those darned admins.  At my job, they block the NNTP protocol, so I
> can't read ng with anything other than the web interface :(
> 

You install OpenSSH server at your home-PC, make sure that you have
route from work to the homebox and enchant "ssh -L 119:203.29.75.35:119"
and configure your news reader at work to connect to localhost. Voilá.
And if you'll close the SSH-connection, there's no route to the news
server either.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> >
> > Those darned admins.  At my job, they block the NNTP protocol, so I
> > can't read ng with anything other than the web interface :(
> >
>
> You install OpenSSH server at your home-PC, make sure that you have
> route from work to the homebox and enchant "ssh -L 119:203.29.75.35:119"
> and configure your news reader at work to connect to localhost. Voilá.
> And if you'll close the SSH-connection, there's no route to the news
> server either.

diabolical plans to postpone work.  Learned from the BOFH? ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:06:59 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html
>> 
>> I've used this myself when I absolutely needed the ability to use NNTP
>> and the port was blocked.
> 
> Umm... no thanks.  I'd rather not lose my job if they find out I've
> installed custom software to bypass their security :)

Well, there is that.  I've always gotten permission first before using 
something like this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.

Heck, CP/M let you have extensionless files. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> 
> diabolical plans to postpone work.  Learned from the BOFH? ;)
> 

Learned from? Heck, I AM the BOFH ;).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Learned from? Heck, I AM the BOFH ;).
> 

...meaning I work as one. AFAIK I'm not the one who inspired the stories :p.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Alain wrote:
>> Have you tryed "cheating"?
> 
> I saw a great tool for tunneling IP over DNS.
> 

What next, IP via Morse Code timed SNMP pings? The check sums would need
work, one faulty router in the middle and S turns into O.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Alain wrote:
>>> Have you tryed "cheating"?
>> I saw a great tool for tunneling IP over DNS.
>>
> 
> What next, IP via Morse Code timed SNMP pings? 

You laugh, but this is exactly the sort of thing NSA, CIA, and other spy 
places worry are running on their computers. It's called "covert 
channels", which wikipedia has a decent page on. "Port knocking" is when 
you do this on purpose to talk to your firewall.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Alain wrote:
>>> Have you tryed "cheating"?
>> I saw a great tool for tunneling IP over DNS.
>>
> 
> What next, IP via Morse Code timed SNMP pings? The check sums would need
> work, one faulty router in the middle and S turns into O.

I saw an RFC for IP carried by Carrier Pigeons, once :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.
> 
> Heck, CP/M let you have extensionless files. :-)

yes, for old systems like Unix and all, extensions are just part of the 
name, nothing special.  I was under the impression that on Windows it 
was just another artificial limitation imposed on users, like GUIs and 
dialog boxes...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/30 12:59:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>>> At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.
>>
>> Heck, CP/M let you have extensionless files. :-)
> 
> yes, for old systems like Unix and all, extensions are just part of the 
> name, nothing special.  I was under the impression that on Windows it 
> was just another artificial limitation imposed on users, like GUIs and 
> dialog boxes...
Old name storage limitation when the names where in the 8.3 format. 8 characters 
for the name, of whitch you must use from 1 to 8, and an extention for an extra 
3 characters for the extention, hence the term "extention". Those could cary 0 
to 3 characters. The content of the extention is purely arbitrary, with some 
having specific, reserved, signification.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Sometimes my love of the arcane combines with my askew humor to make me 
unintelligible!!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>>> At what point was that? Even MS-DOS let you have extensionless files.
>>
>> Heck, CP/M let you have extensionless files. :-)
> 
> yes, for old systems like Unix and all, extensions are just part of the 
> name, nothing special.

That's the same on Windows, Unix, and CP/M.  The only difference is how 
the command line and/or libraries parse the names.

CP/M had 11-digit names. Most command-line utilities interpreted a dot 
as "fill with spaces to the 8th character", and a "*" as "fill with 
question marks to either the 8th or 11th character, whichever comes 
first."  Basically.  There certainly wasn't any "." or 8.3 on the disk.

Windows just stores the dot, at least on NTFS volumes. FAT volumes still 
have the 11-character limitation (which is where you get 11-character 
volume names) until you get the "extended names" (which are encoded 
names stored in directory entries marked as "deleted").

UNIX original (as in v7) had 14-character names, because they had 
16-character slots in directories with 2-byte inode numbers.

Nowadays, it's all pretty opened up. But there's nothing that enforces 
anything in Windows to use particular extensions for particular types of 
files, except maybe executable EXE and DLL files. (Not even sure about 
that.)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:27:06 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Nowadays, it's all pretty opened up. But there's nothing that enforces
> anything in Windows to use particular extensions for particular types of
> files, except maybe executable EXE and DLL files. (Not even sure about
> that.)

ISTR that it used to be (at least) with DOS that the interpreter/shell 
(ie, command.com) had special handlers for .com and .exe and that you 
couldn't execute a program with.  That said, I do know that the exec... 
and spawn... C functions could launch any file as an executable (used to 
do this myself, actually - replacing a login.exe file with a custom-
written wrapper that exec'ed a login.nov executable).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> ISTR that it used to be (at least) with DOS that the interpreter/shell 
> (ie, command.com) had special handlers for .com and .exe and that you 
> couldn't execute a program with. 

I'm not sure what that means. But yeah, I don't necessarily count 
Explorer (for example) as "part of the OS". It's just a shell.

But that's what I meant by "except maybe EXE and DLL files". I'm not 
sure if the extension is required to be there for some of the exec/spawn 
type calls to work.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:14:54 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> ISTR that it used to be (at least) with DOS that the interpreter/shell
>> (ie, command.com) had special handlers for .com and .exe and that you
>> couldn't execute a program with.

Whoops, I meant "without those extensions", and then my brain kicked in 
and reminded me that it was command.com that did that, not the DOS kernel.

> I'm not sure what that means. But yeah, I don't necessarily count
> Explorer (for example) as "part of the OS". It's just a shell.

Yep.

> But that's what I meant by "except maybe EXE and DLL files". I'm not
> sure if the extension is required to be there for some of the exec/spawn
> type calls to work.

At least in DOS, it's not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:14:54 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not sure what that means. But yeah, I don't necessarily count
>> Explorer (for example) as "part of the OS". It's just a shell.
> 
> Yep.

so what?  Unless you go calling kernel subroutines by hand just to 
overcome the limitations the shell imposes, the shell and its 
idiosyncrasies is what you, as an user, is limited to.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:04:28 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:14:54 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what that means. But yeah, I don't necessarily count
>>> Explorer (for example) as "part of the OS". It's just a shell.
>> 
>> Yep.
> 
> so what?

As a DOS programmer, that's a very significant difference.

> Unless you go calling kernel subroutines by hand just to
> overcome the limitations the shell imposes, the shell and its
> idiosyncrasies is what you, as an user, is limited to.

I don't believe I ever said I was just a user.  In fact, I used to write 
DOS-based programs quite regularly to accomplish specific tasks, 
including using undocumented DOS calls to make it do things outside of 
what the "normal" DOS BIOS functions would allow.

Hands up, all those here who know what INT21 is without looking it up.

Bonus points for those who can describe INT2F and how it relates to INT21 
functions.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:14:54 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what that means. But yeah, I don't necessarily count
>>> Explorer (for example) as "part of the OS". It's just a shell.
>>
>> Yep.
> 
> so what?  Unless you go calling kernel subroutines by hand just to 
> overcome the limitations the shell imposes, the shell and its 
> idiosyncrasies is what you, as an user, is limited to.

Uh, yeah, most programmers call kernel subroutines by hand.

My point being that all the stuff about file extensions meaning certain 
things, and ".gif" files being images etc, is all handled by explorer. 
If you want to have ".c" files be images and compile C source code 
stored in ".jpg" files, nothing prevents you.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message