Sometimes I just hate *$%Q!##& computers.
My version of VisiBroker (for which I have a valid license, btw)
thinks it's an eval, and has a timebomb that expired in Feb/98.
So whenever I'm running it, I have to set the clock on my
machine back to Jan. or so. And occasionally I forget to reset
it, and then
send mail to the outside world, timestamped 10 months ago. Which
is presumably the cause of the failure message I got below.
Sheesh. Computers suck. Or is it stupid users that suck? Or are there
no stupid users, only stupid systems that don't anticipate their
NeXT Mail Agent wrote:
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> While connected to mail.Virginia.EDU:
> >>> MAIL From:<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> <<< 451 Nameserver timeout during parsing
> 421 microsoft.com (ddn)... Deferred: Connection refused by mail3.microsoft.com
> 421 halla.sec.samsung.co.kr (ddn)... Deferred: No such file or directory
> 554 email@example.com... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative answer from name server): No such file or directory
> 421 shortbus.com (ddn)... Deferred: Connection refused by commwerks.com
> 451 firstname.lastname@example.org... timeout waiting for input
> 421 redmailwall.attws.com (ddn)... Deferred: Connection reset by peer during greeting wait with redmailwall.attws.com
> ----- Unsent message follows -----
> Return-Path: <email@example.com>
> Received: from lmail.actcom.co.il by XeNT.ics.UCI.edu (NX5.67f2/NX3.0M)
> id AA07271; Sat, 10 Oct 98 10:37:18 -0700
> Received: from dialogosweb.com (p8.haifa6.actcom.co.il [22.214.171.124])
> by lmail.actcom.co.il (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA17113;
> Sat, 10 Oct 1998 19:30:53 +0200
> Message-Id: <34B7BDC3.269A5300@dialogosweb.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:28:19 -0500
> From: Ron Resnick <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Organization: DiaLogos Incorporated
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; U)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> To: Joe Barrera <joebar@MICROSOFT.com>
> Cc: "'FORK'" <FoRK@xent.ICS.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: Windows NT Server is #1 Web Server, Study Reveals
> References: <4D0A23B3F74DD111ACCD00805F31D810201C30@RED-MSG-50>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Joe Barrera wrote:
> > Or, as Rick Rashid pointed out to me once, during my first year of grad
> > school, when I described something in a paper as a "truly distributed
> > operating system"... "what is a falsely distributed operating system?"
> Having not the slightest interest in getting into the "truth
> in advertising" discussion, I will note that there are degrees
> of distribution in OSes, as well as in other things. For example,
> an OS that offers file services across multiple nodes, but otherwise
> has no distributed memory or process execution facilities is
> "less" distributed than an OS that has such facilities.
> Hence, a designer claiming that his/her system was "truly" distributed
> could be, fairly, contrasting its highly decentralized architecture
> (lookup services, persistence, memory, process migration, etc.)
> against systems that had only some, but not all, of these features.
> I.e., the opposite of "truly distributed", in this context, doesn't
> necessarily have to be "falsely distributed".
> (This FoRKpost, of course, is merely a pretext for including the
> advert-sig below :-)
> Ron Resnick
> Senior Consulting Engineer
> DiaLogos Incorporated
> FLASH! NEW Distributed Java Survey course being offered
> starting in Nov 1998 provides in-depth hands-on training
> with RMI, CORBA, ObjectSpace Voyager (TM) and SoftWired iBus (TM).
> Check http://www.dialogosweb.com/javasurvey.html for details.