|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 95 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 50 of 95:
| 
Oct 12 14:00 UTC 2003 |
What do you mean by "in-band file transfer protocols", malymi?
|
remmers
|
|
response 51 of 95:
|
Oct 12 14:51 UTC 2003 |
Probably kermit and zmodem.
|
malymi
|
|
response 52 of 95:
|
Oct 12 20:32 UTC 2003 |
indeed, kermit and x/y/z-modem. a large datagram presented to telnetd
has no more significant system overhead than one presented to ftpd.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 53 of 95:
|
Oct 13 02:57 UTC 2003 |
kermit and z/y/z-modem weren't designed to be used in telnet sessions. Use
FTP, if you have a telnet connection.
|
cross
|
|
response 54 of 95:
|
Oct 13 13:03 UTC 2003 |
They weren't designed that way, it's true, but that doesn't preclude their
use. Personally, I see no reason not to allow kermit and [xyz]modem over
telnet (or any other interactive login service). If I'm not mistaken, zmodem
at least was designed to run over a packet switched network, and I know
kermit was designed to transfer files over a statically connected network
(pardon the loose usage of terms). In particular, kermit was designed
to transfer files between a PDP-10 mainframe running TOPS-20 and a PC in
a `directly connected' computer lab.
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 95:
|
Oct 13 19:15 UTC 2003 |
Discouragement of kermit and x/y/zmodem on Grex was done at at time when
Grex's internet bandwidth was orders of magnitude less than it is now.
Ftp was noticeably more efficient. Now that we have a faster connection,
maybe it's time to revisit the issue. Appropriate topic for the next
staff meeting.
|
aruba
|
|
response 56 of 95:
|
Oct 22 01:14 UTC 2003 |
Well, our Centrex contract ended today, and Ameritech was supposed to drop
three of our phone lines. I just called them, and they haven't been dropped
yet. If they're still there in a couple of days, I'll call and hassle them.
|
other
|
|
response 57 of 95:
|
Oct 22 01:46 UTC 2003 |
Ahh, good old Ameriwreck...
|
aruba
|
|
response 58 of 95:
|
Oct 22 16:53 UTC 2003 |
Well, I called our lines just now, and indeed 3554, 3596, and 7541 have been
disconnected. 3000, 5041, 3411, and 3451 are still up, so it looks like
everything went as requested, only a day late. We'll see when we get the
bill, of course, but so far so good.
|
tsty
|
|
response 59 of 95:
|
Nov 8 09:09 UTC 2003 |
and teh hunt group works JustFine (tm) ?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 60 of 95:
|
Nov 8 13:49 UTC 2003 |
It does now, so far as we know. SBC had not included 3000 in the group at
first, but that was fixed on the following Monday, IIRC, and tested at the
BoD meeting.
|
aruba
|
|
response 61 of 95:
|
Nov 9 01:31 UTC 2003 |
Right, as far as I know everything's working fine. We haven't received the
November bill yet. When we do we'll find out if everything's really all
right.
|
aruba
|
|
response 62 of 95:
|
Nov 14 02:43 UTC 2003 |
I received the phone bill today, and as I feared, they charged us an
installation charge on our four lines. $42 each. I made two different
employees promise me they weren't going to do that, so I'll be on the phone
tomorrow morning trying to sort it out.
|
aruba
|
|
response 63 of 95:
|
Nov 14 15:45 UTC 2003 |
I called the old number I used to call to get help with our phone system,
and was told that now that we aren't on Centrex, we have been transferred to
another department.
So I spoke with Beverly in the new department. (I think it's called
Industrial Information Services, or something like that.) Beverly told me
to write a letter disputing the installation charges, naming names of the
employees who told me we wouldn't be charged, and fax it to them. She
said people who work with a project manager on transfers usually don't get
charged installation fees - so whether one is obliged to pay for
installation seems to depend on who you know.
I do have the full name of one employee who told me there would be no
installation charges, and the first name of the other, with the dates I
talked to them. Hopefully that will be enough to get a reversal. I'm
pretty pissed off about this situation. I did all I could short of
demanding a promise in writing, and I doubt that would have worked.
|
mary
|
|
response 64 of 95:
|
Nov 14 22:29 UTC 2003 |
You're a good and generous person, Mark.
Thanks for doing this.
|
aruba
|
|
response 65 of 95:
|
Nov 18 16:45 UTC 2003 |
I faxed off a letter to SBC yesterday, requesting a reversal of the
installation charges.
|
aruba
|
|
response 66 of 95:
|
Nov 21 16:24 UTC 2003 |
I called SBC to check that our fax was received, and in fact it was. It
has been assigned to a billing dispute person. Turnaround time is about 1
month.
|
aruba
|
|
response 67 of 95:
|
Dec 4 18:54 UTC 2003 |
I got a fax back from Ameritech today, and while not admitting they did
anything wrong, they did agree to "adjust" the charges that appeared on our
November bill. So we should be getting a credit of $168 on our next
bill. That should mean that our December bill will be $0, and our January
bill will be around $12. In February we'll be back to paying $90/month.
|
mary
|
|
response 68 of 95:
|
Dec 4 18:55 UTC 2003 |
Wow. Nice, Mark.
|
jp2
|
|
response 69 of 95:
|
Dec 4 19:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 70 of 95:
|
Dec 4 19:29 UTC 2003 |
I don't know. You tell us Jamie ;)
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 95:
|
Dec 4 19:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 72 of 95:
|
Dec 4 23:21 UTC 2003 |
Thanks for sorting this Mark.
|
aruba
|
|
response 73 of 95:
|
Dec 5 02:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #69: Because they have a monopoly, and they don't have to care what we
think. They do have to care what the Michigan Public Service Commission
thinks, though, so they do just enough that we can't complain to them.
I'll take it. :)
|
twenex
|
|
response 74 of 95:
|
Dec 7 19:03 UTC 2003 |
Thanks for your efforts mark!
|