[Info-vax] Fwd: Undeliverable: New RoadMap out for VMS

[Forster, Michael]

Begin forwarded message:

From: postmaster <postmaster at fm.mcw.edu<mailto:postmaster at fm.mcw.edu>>
Date: October 2, 2011 8:04:32 PM CDT
To: "Forster, Michael" <mforster at mcw.edu<mailto:mforster at mcw.edu>>
Subject: Undeliverable: [Info-vax] New RoadMap out for VMS


Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

<mailto:rgilbert88 at comcast.net>rgilbert88 at comcast.net<mailto:rgilbert88 at comcast.net>
A communication failure occurred during the delivery of this message. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.







Diagnostic information for administrators:

Generating server: <http://mcw.edu> mcw.edu<http://mcw.edu>

rgilbert88 at comcast.net<mailto:rgilbert88 at comcast.net>
#< #5.5.0 SMTP; 554 imta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast 141.106.129.7 Comcast block for spam. Please see http://help.comcast.net/content/faq/BL000000 > #SMTP#

Original message headers:

Return-Path: <mforster at mcw.edu<mailto:mforster at mcw.edu>>
Received: from MCWEXCHH2.mcwcorp.net<http://MCWEXCHH2.mcwcorp.net> ([141.106.20.169])   by
 fortimailout.fm.mcw.edu<http://fortimailout.fm.mcw.edu>  with ESMTP id p9314Sui023252-p9314Suk023252
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=CAFAIL); Sun, 2 Oct
 2011 20:04:28 -0500
Received: from MCWMBX2.mcwcorp.net<http://MCWMBX2.mcwcorp.net> ([169.254.1.205]) by MCWEXCHH2.mcwcorp.net<http://MCWEXCHH2.mcwcorp.net>
 ([141.106.20.169]) with mapi; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:04:27 -0500
From: "Forster, Michael" <mforster at mcw.edu<mailto:mforster at mcw.edu>>
To: "rgilbert88 at comcast.net<mailto:rgilbert88 at comcast.net>" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net<mailto:rgilbert88 at comcast.net>>, "comp.os.vms toemail
 gateway" <info-vax at rbnsn.com<mailto:info-vax at rbnsn.com>>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:04:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [Info-vax] New RoadMap out for VMS
Thread-Topic: [Info-vax] New RoadMap out for VMS
Thread-Index: AcyBaGYT0aLzCc70TxeErOm5r4v6ag==
Message-ID: <9344542C-A128-4F07-B010-2C5A5EDB236D at mcw.edu<mailto:9344542C-A128-4F07-B010-2C5A5EDB236D at mcw.edu>>
References: <j68dus$1bm$1 at speranza.aioe.org<mailto:j68dus$1bm$1 at speranza.aioe.org>>
 <4e880daf$0$2327$c3e8da3$76a7c58f at news.astraweb.com<mailto:4e880daf$0$2327$c3e8da3$76a7c58f at news.astraweb.com>>
 <j69ph9$sor$1 at news.albasani.net<mailto:j69ph9$sor$1 at news.albasani.net>>
 <4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 at news.astraweb.com<mailto:4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 at news.astraweb.com>>
 <j6ao4q$2t4$1 at speranza.aioe.org<mailto:j6ao4q$2t4$1 at speranza.aioe.org>>
 <PZudnflqSaKrmBTTnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d at giganews.com<mailto:PZudnflqSaKrmBTTnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d at giganews.com>>
In-Reply-To: <PZudnflqSaKrmBTTnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d at giganews.com<mailto:PZudnflqSaKrmBTTnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d at giganews.com>>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


Reporting-MTA: dns; mcw.edu<http://mcw.edu> Final-recipient: RFC822; rgilbert88 at comcast.net<mailto:rgilbert88 at comcast.net> Action: failed Status: 5.5.0 X-Supplementary-Info: < #5.5.0 SMTP; 554 imta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast 141.106.129.7 Comcast block for spam. Please see http://help.comcast.net/content/faq/BL000000 >
Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!

On Oct 2, 2011, at 7:50 PM, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net<mailto:rgilbert88 at comcast.net>> wrote:

On 10/2/2011 6:21 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
"JF Mezei"<jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca<mailto:jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca>>  wrote in message
news:4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 at news.astraweb.com<mailto:4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 at news.astraweb.com>...
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.

If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
existing version of the layered product/middleware.

There is no mention of a new version of VMS.

Will IPsec be introduced as an ECO of TCPIP services, or will there be a
totally new version of the product ?

After the Impressionists are finally finished with their haystacks, can I
just point out that IPsec has been on the "Future Release" schedule for over
10 years :-(

When does someone get called to account for this bullshit?

Before you can "call someone to account" you will need to find someone
who has assumed responsibility for porting IPSEC to VMS or for writing
it from scratch.  If you REALLY want it, start writing it.  You'll get
it faster!

AFAIK VMS is no longer being developed.  It's in "we wish it would go
away" mode as far as anybody assuming responsibility is concerned.

ISTR that HP is obligated to support VMS for several more years.  That's
*NOT* the same as continuing development!

<snip>

I think that if you investigated, you would find that VMS uses
technology that is licensed from third parties.  I don't want to think
of the unholy mess when HP drops support for VMS after honoring
contractual commitments to the Defense Department and, perhaps a few
other big customers.

If someone offered enough money, H-P might continue support for VMS.
I'll believe it when I see the signed contracts. . . .


_______________________________________________
Info-vax mailing list
Info-vax at rbnsn.com<mailto:Info-vax at rbnsn.com>
http://rbnsn.com/mailman/listinfo/info-vax_rbnsn.com