[NTISP Digest]

ntisp-digest-request@iea-software.com
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:00:17 -0700

Message 1: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
from "Rudy Komsic" <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>

Message 2: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
from "Rudy Komsic" <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>

Message 3: ISP software available
from "Paul Rensel" <paul@ixs.nl>

Message 4: Re: ISP software available
from timdp@tdpnet.com (Tim Pitman)

Message 5: unsubscribe
from "Don Swett" <dswett@ilnk.com>

Message 6: RE: ISP software available
from Radu IONESCU <iradu@unitbv.ro>

Message 7: RE: Postoffice 3.5 released
from Jeff Woods <jwoods@delta.com>

Message 8: Re: ARGH! Can't back up!
from John Lange <radadmin@palacenet.net>

Message 9: HTTPS thru proxy
from "Kevin Ingram" <kingram@cameron.net>

Message 10: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
from "Majordomo@essex1.com" <majordomo@essex1.com>

Message 11: Re: HTTPS thru proxy
from Brian Lube <brian@mpinet.net>

Message 12: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
from Ric Castagna <ric@viperlink.net>

Message 13: RE: Postoffice 3.5 released
from Albert Churba <Albert@dialisdn.com>

Message 14: Re: Slow login for DUN 1.2
from "Josh Hillman" <admin-maillist@talstar.com>

Message 15: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
from Christian Schmit <cschmit@vo.lu>

Message 16: Re: Slow login for DUN 1.2
from "Mike@NetDotCom" <mikek@netdotcom.com>

Message 17: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
from Dave Mussulman <dave@vircom.com>

Message 18: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
from Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>

Message 19: RE: HTTPS thru proxy
from Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>

Message 20: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
from "Dale E. Reed Jr." <daler@iea-software.com>

Message 21: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
from "Dave McLaughlin" <dave_mclaughlin@netmedia.com.au>

Message 22: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
from Matthew Andersen <mander@zso.dec.com>

Message 23: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
from Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>

Message 24: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?
from "Robb Bryn" <rblist@cape-fear.net>

Message 25: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?
from rkm@marshall.net (rkm)

Message 26: unsubscribe
from caide@cvn.net (Computer Aide)

Message 27: Re: ARGH! Can't back up!
from "Dan Waldron" <dan@diversified.com.au>

Message 28: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?
from Robb Bryn <rbryn@cape-fear.net>

Message 29: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?
from Albert Churba <Albert@dialisdn.com>

Message 30: Re: [data] ANNOUNCEMENT: RadiusNT 2.5 Releases
from "Howard Brooks" <admin@iamnow.net>

Message 31: Re: [data] ANNOUNCEMENT: RadiusNT 2.5 Releases
from "Dale E. Reed Jr." <daler@iea-software.com>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
From: "Rudy Komsic" <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:53:31 -0400

If I limited the Bandwidth for personal webpages (100 MB/month Traffic) then
the Bandwidth limiter will be like 0.02 Kb/s...

That is why we need an alternative to generate extra Income for Bandwidth
used.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Andersen <mander@zso.dec.com>
To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com' <ntisp@iea-software.com>
Date: June 10, 1998 1:07 AM
Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

>Why don't you just limit that bandwidth available to them?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 8:24 PM
>To: ntisp@iea-software.com
>Subject: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
>
>
>Hello,
>
>As we have been seeing more and more personal users abusing their web
>hosting
>priviledges, we are looking into implementing a personal web host
>traffic
>limiter. What it would do is determine if the specified personal
>client's
>website had gone over the monthly allowance of web traffic. If he did,
>he
>would be referred to our "Client's website had too many hits this month
>and
>will return next month" web page.
>
>Can anyone point me to the right direction on obtaining software like
>this for
>MIIS 4.0?
>
>----
>Rudy Komsic
>President, Network Administrator - Cyberglobe Communications Inc.
>4996 Place de la Savane, Suite 200, Montreal, Quebec, H4P 1Z6
>Tel: (514)342-3883 Fax: (514)342-5139 E-Mail: rudyk@cyberglobe.net
>
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
From: "Rudy Komsic" <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:55:04 -0400

Hmmm Thanks for the suggestion... But now I have to learn ASP... Any good
books on this? It is not the Hits we are looking for... but the Actual
External Bandwidth.

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Sinang <danny@uplink.com.ph>
To: ntisp@iea-software.com <ntisp@iea-software.com>
Date: June 10, 1998 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

>How about forcing your users to put a "default.asp" in their home directory
>?
>
>This default.asp would then contain ASP code to monitor how many hits the
>user's website has received. If the maxhits has been reached, have the ASP
>code show the "Max hits has been reached" page.
>
>- Danny
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rudy Komsic <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>
>To: ntisp@iea-software.com <ntisp@iea-software.com>
>Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 11:29 AM
>Subject: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>As we have been seeing more and more personal users abusing their web
>hosting
>>priviledges, we are looking into implementing a personal web host traffic
>>limiter. What it would do is determine if the specified personal client's
>>website had gone over the monthly allowance of web traffic. If he did, he
>>would be referred to our "Client's website had too many hits this month and
>>will return next month" web page.
>>
>>Can anyone point me to the right direction on obtaining software like this
>for
>>MIIS 4.0?
>>
>>----
>>Rudy Komsic
>>President, Network Administrator - Cyberglobe Communications Inc.
>>4996 Place de la Savane, Suite 200, Montreal, Quebec, H4P 1Z6
>>Tel: (514)342-3883 Fax: (514)342-5139 E-Mail: rudyk@cyberglobe.net
>>
>>
>>
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: ISP software available
From: "Paul Rensel" <paul@ixs.nl>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:19:08 +0200

Hi there,

as i mentioned some days ago we've build our own 'emerald' like program.
for those who are interested in taking part in the developement, i'm willing
to share the VB 5.0 source with them

you need VB5.0 Enterprise and SQL Server 6.5 for it.

Just sent me an email and i will sent you the source.

Best Regards,

Paul Rensel

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 4 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: ISP software available
From: timdp@tdpnet.com (Tim Pitman)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 06:38:59 -0500

I would be interested in the source code. Do you want enhancements sent
back to you, I assume?

Thanks,
Tim
timdp@tdpnet.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Rensel <paul@ixs.nl>
To: ntisp@iea-software.com <ntisp@iea-software.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 3:23 AM
Subject: ISP software available

>Hi there,
>
>as i mentioned some days ago we've build our own 'emerald' like program.
>for those who are interested in taking part in the developement, i'm
willing
>to share the VB 5.0 source with them
>
>you need VB5.0 Enterprise and SQL Server 6.5 for it.
>
>Just sent me an email and i will sent you the source.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Paul Rensel
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 5 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: unsubscribe
From: "Don Swett" <dswett@ilnk.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:40:29 -0400

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 6 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: ISP software available
From: Radu IONESCU <iradu@unitbv.ro>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:10:42 +0300

Hello,

I have the s/w platform, but no experience at all with Emerald, neither with SQL Srv..
You would have to be very punctual in your specification for what I would have to do.
Anyway, I wish I try.

Best regards,

Radu IONESCU - iradu@unitbv.ro
Systems Manager, University TRANSILVANIA Brasov
Bvd. Eroilor29, 2200 Brasov, Romania
Phone: 40 68 152891, 40 68 124988 (home); Fax: 40 68 144634

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Rensel [SMTP:paul@ixs.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 11:19 AM
To: ntisp@iea-software.com
Subject: ISP software available

Hi there,

as i mentioned some days ago we've build our own 'emerald' like program.
for those who are interested in taking part in the developement, i'm willing
to share the VB 5.0 source with them

you need VB5.0 Enterprise and SQL Server 6.5 for it.

Just sent me an email and i will sent you the source.

Best Regards,

Paul Rensel

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 7 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Postoffice 3.5 released
From: Jeff Woods <jwoods@delta.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:32:46 -0400

At 02:27 PM 6/9/98 -0700, you wrote:

>>The pricing is simply ridiculous. We like Post.Office 3.1.2 very much. But,
>>at that sort of price, there is no way we are going to even consider
>>upgrading. Most vendors give their customers free, or very low cost,
>>upgrades within version types. Apparently Software.com doesn't think this
>>way, and doesn't care about customer loyalty. This pricing structure will
>>drive customers away in droves.

You didn't notice this when the pricing changes from 2.x to 3.0? That's
when I bailed for NTmail. I'm quite happy with it, other than the rumor
that they will move their NTList product (a bundled part) to per-mailbox
pricing as well, when they upgrade from 3.03d to v4.0 (quite the major
upgrade from what I hear). Also, the per-mailbox pricing is a LOT more
reasonable than $99 per 100 boxes, and the flat upgrade pricing of $495
makes the decision quite easy.
>>
>>
>>On the other hand I must admit that the Postoffice E-Mail server works
>>>flawlessly since we are using it. Rock solid never had a problem, but the
>>>pricing strategy of software.com is becoming a problem for us.
>>
>>I'm in full agreement with you. It should have been a free upgrade for 3.x
>>customers. Their pricing is leading us to IMail faster than Software.com
>>would have ever believed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 8 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: ARGH! Can't back up!
From: John Lange <radadmin@palacenet.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:03:27 -0500

Set the Arcana Schedular to operate as Administrator and give the Admin
password.

JOhn :}

John C. Lange, Sr. PALACE dot NET, INC.
microjl@palacenet.net MICRO-TECH Computers, Inc.
608.742.1601 & 6980 2800 New Pinery Road
http://www.palacenet.net/ Portage, WI 53901
Visit our online store @ http://www.microt.com/
Authorized iPSwitch WebVar @ http://www.microt.com/iPSwitch/index.html

--- __o
--- _-\<,_ Fastest Service in Town
--- (_)/ (_)

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 9 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: HTTPS thru proxy
From: "Kevin Ingram" <kingram@cameron.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:46:53 -0500

Does anyone have any pointers for setting up a proxy system to pass https
information? Do we need to add certain ports to the mapping translations, or
is there something else that needs done? I am evaluating several proxy
software packages WinProxy, NetProxy, Sygate and have one application where
HTTPS will be needed on all client stations, and must work reliably.

All input appreciated . . .

Thanks!

Kevin Ingram

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 10 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
From: "Majordomo@essex1.com" <majordomo@essex1.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:44:00 -0500

More loose change;
We have been using Post.Office since before ver 1.0. We used to have an
unlimited licence, but had to give that up for version 3.x . Today we
ordered an additional 1000 mail boxes at $995 (special ISP offer at that).
It's a great server but the company doesn't seem to want to have ISP's as
customers. They are too concerned about selling maintenance agreements, and
making $$$ off of corporate Intranets. Why have a listserv when you can
make money off of people's questions?
I think the other mail server companies are missing the boat. If they
offer reasonable prices, unlimited licences, and an easy-to-use migration
utility they could take Software.Com out of the ISP business. If it wasn't
for all the accounts we would have to reenter we would seriously look at
dumping Software.Com.

At 09:15 PM 6/9/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I just saw that Post-Office 3.5 is available, but when I saw
>what a Postoffice 3.1.2 customer needs to pay as upgrade
>I feel pissed off. 99$ per 100 e-mail addresses. They even make no
>difference if you have licensed Postoffce version 1.x; 2.x; or 3.x.
>Everyone has to pay the same when upgrading! Thinking back on
>the BIG price increase from version 2.x to 3.x where one got
>500 e-mails for 495$ now 100 e-mails for 495$, I thought that they
>would be more cooperative on upgrades after this dramatic price
>increase. I already wonder what the upgrade price will be from version 3.5 to
>4.0?
>
>When looking the what's new in Postoffice 3.5 I find that
>only minor changes and features were added which already should have
>been in Postoffice for a long time. Important changes such as IMAP4
>or a web interface for customers to access their mail when no mail client
>is available are still missing!
>
>They also gave the product a new name Intermail Postoffice edition.
>
>Another problem I have with them is that they even don't offer a mailing
list
>for Postoffice customers where customers can help themselves to resolve
>problems even if problems are very rare with PostOffice. They want you to
>buy their support packages.
>
>On the other hand I must admit that the Postoffice E-Mail server works
>flawlessly since we are using it. Rock solid never had a problem, but the
>pricing strategy of software.com is becoming a problem for us.
>
>Just my 5 cents,
>
>Christian
>
>
>
R. Laughlin
Majordomo@essex1.com
Essex Internet
Sterling, IL 61081
(815) 625-8893

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 11 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: HTTPS thru proxy
From: Brian Lube <brian@mpinet.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:49:06 -0400

Look into Wingate. I'm using it personally for my home LAN and seems to
work rather well with HTTP proxy. I'll have to check https when I get home
tonight.

Brian Lube
MPInet

At 11:46 AM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Does anyone have any pointers for setting up a proxy system to pass https
>information? Do we need to add certain ports to the mapping translations, or
>is there something else that needs done? I am evaluating several proxy
>software packages WinProxy, NetProxy, Sygate and have one application where
>HTTPS will be needed on all client stations, and must work reliably.
>
>All input appreciated . . .
>
>Thanks!
>
>Kevin Ingram
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 12 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
From: Ric Castagna <ric@viperlink.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:51:15 -0400

I have a client that uses MDaemon (www.mdaemon.com). It's a great mail
server with 5000 accounts for $89.95. It also has a built in listserv
function.

Only two drawbacks:
1. It doesn't host multiple domains without running multiple copies of the
app, and
2. It can not crack mail lists over about 30 subscribers internally. You
have to find another server to relay the mail through.

Supposedly, they're working on these two issues. Could David be in the
bullpen warming up to beat Goliath?

/ric

At 12:44 PM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>More loose change;
> We have been using Post.Office since before ver 1.0. We used to have an
>unlimited licence, but had to give that up for version 3.x . Today we
>ordered an additional 1000 mail boxes at $995 (special ISP offer at that).
>It's a great server but the company doesn't seem to want to have ISP's as
>customers. They are too concerned about selling maintenance agreements, and
>making $$$ off of corporate Intranets. Why have a listserv when you can
>make money off of people's questions?
> I think the other mail server companies are missing the boat. If they
>offer reasonable prices, unlimited licences, and an easy-to-use migration
>utility they could take Software.Com out of the ISP business. If it wasn't
>for all the accounts we would have to reenter we would seriously look at
>dumping Software.Com.
>
>
>At 09:15 PM 6/9/98 +0200, you wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I just saw that Post-Office 3.5 is available, but when I saw
>>what a Postoffice 3.1.2 customer needs to pay as upgrade
>>I feel pissed off. 99$ per 100 e-mail addresses. They even make no
>>difference if you have licensed Postoffce version 1.x; 2.x; or 3.x.
>>Everyone has to pay the same when upgrading! Thinking back on
>>the BIG price increase from version 2.x to 3.x where one got
>>500 e-mails for 495$ now 100 e-mails for 495$, I thought that they
>>would be more cooperative on upgrades after this dramatic price
>>increase. I already wonder what the upgrade price will be from version
3.5 to
>>4.0?
>>
>>When looking the what's new in Postoffice 3.5 I find that
>>only minor changes and features were added which already should have
>>been in Postoffice for a long time. Important changes such as IMAP4
>>or a web interface for customers to access their mail when no mail client
>>is available are still missing!
>>
>>They also gave the product a new name Intermail Postoffice edition.
>>
>>Another problem I have with them is that they even don't offer a mailing
>list
>>for Postoffice customers where customers can help themselves to resolve
>>problems even if problems are very rare with PostOffice. They want you to
>>buy their support packages.
>>
>>On the other hand I must admit that the Postoffice E-Mail server works
>>flawlessly since we are using it. Rock solid never had a problem, but the
>>pricing strategy of software.com is becoming a problem for us.
>>
>>Just my 5 cents,
>>
>>Christian
>>
>>
>>
> R. Laughlin
> Majordomo@essex1.com
> Essex Internet
> Sterling, IL 61081
> (815) 625-8893
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 13 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Postoffice 3.5 released
From: Albert Churba <Albert@dialisdn.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:13:04 -0400

Isn't there a function in Post Office to retrieve a list of accounts? I
remember this under Netscape. Login to the server as a POP
accounts@mail.domain.com and place "list" in the message body. This should
give you a text list of the first address of each mailbox. I used it when I
ported to NTMail. It was a good starting point for migration.

Can we not have this bashing about Post Office as we had in the past. They
SUCK and we all know it. Please...

MDaemon is a great product. Many of our clients use it and are quite happy.
We even started using ETRN with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ric Castagna [SMTP:ric@viperlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 1:51 PM
To: ntisp@iea-software.com
Subject: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released

I have a client that uses MDaemon (www.mdaemon.com). It's a great mail
server with 5000 accounts for $89.95. It also has a built in listserv
function.

Only two drawbacks:
1. It doesn't host multiple domains without running multiple copies of the
app, and
2. It can not crack mail lists over about 30 subscribers internally. You
have to find another server to relay the mail through.

Supposedly, they're working on these two issues. Could David be in the
bullpen warming up to beat Goliath?

/ric

At 12:44 PM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>More loose change;
> We have been using Post.Office since before ver 1.0. We used to have an
>unlimited licence, but had to give that up for version 3.x . Today we
>ordered an additional 1000 mail boxes at $995 (special ISP offer at that).
>It's a great server but the company doesn't seem to want to have ISP's as
>customers. They are too concerned about selling maintenance agreements,
and
>making $$$ off of corporate Intranets. Why have a listserv when you can
>make money off of people's questions?
> I think the other mail server companies are missing the boat. If they
>offer reasonable prices, unlimited licences, and an easy-to-use migration
>utility they could take Software.Com out of the ISP business. If it wasn't
>for all the accounts we would have to reenter we would seriously look at
>dumping Software.Com.
>
>
>At 09:15 PM 6/9/98 +0200, you wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I just saw that Post-Office 3.5 is available, but when I saw
>>what a Postoffice 3.1.2 customer needs to pay as upgrade
>>I feel pissed off. 99$ per 100 e-mail addresses. They even make no
>>difference if you have licensed Postoffce version 1.x; 2.x; or 3.x.
>>Everyone has to pay the same when upgrading! Thinking back on
>>the BIG price increase from version 2.x to 3.x where one got
>>500 e-mails for 495$ now 100 e-mails for 495$, I thought that they
>>would be more cooperative on upgrades after this dramatic price
>>increase. I already wonder what the upgrade price will be from version
3.5 to
>>4.0?
>>
>>When looking the what's new in Postoffice 3.5 I find that
>>only minor changes and features were added which already should have
>>been in Postoffice for a long time. Important changes such as IMAP4
>>or a web interface for customers to access their mail when no mail client
>>is available are still missing!
>>
>>They also gave the product a new name Intermail Postoffice edition.
>>
>>Another problem I have with them is that they even don't offer a mailing
>list
>>for Postoffice customers where customers can help themselves to resolve
>>problems even if problems are very rare with PostOffice. They want you to
>>buy their support packages.
>>
>>On the other hand I must admit that the Postoffice E-Mail server works
>>flawlessly since we are using it. Rock solid never had a problem, but the
>>pricing strategy of software.com is becoming a problem for us.
>>
>>Just my 5 cents,
>>
>>Christian
>>
>>
>>
> R. Laughlin
> Majordomo@essex1.com
> Essex Internet
> Sterling, IL 61081
> (815) 625-8893
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 14 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Slow login for DUN 1.2
From: "Josh Hillman" <admin-maillist@talstar.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:13:32 -0400

> From: JOOSSE, Greg <joosseg@nrc.com.au>
> After upgrading my OSR2 Windows 95 PC to Dial-Up Networking v1.2 it takes

> much longer to login to my ISP. It seems the authentication process is

> slower. Any ideas how to fix this?

Aside from unchecking "Log on to network," "IPX/SPX," and "NetBEUI" from
the Dial-Up Networking Connection profile, see the following page:
http://support.talstar.com/win95-updates.html

Also, make sure that you have the following settings in:
Start --> Settings --> Control Panel --> Network --> TCP/IP Properties -->
DNS Config: DISable DNS (all entries should be blank)
IP Address: Server assigned
Gateway: empty

A lot of ISPs have their customers set DNS info in the above area, but for
dial-up PPP connections, it's not supposed to go in there. Having settings
in these areas will cause problems--especially if the customer has multiple
ISPs or changes to a different ISP...

Josh Hillman
hillman@talstar.com

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 15 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
From: Christian Schmit <cschmit@vo.lu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:21:07 +0200

Hi,

Where did you get 1000 mailboxes for $995? This is a much more
interesting price.

Thanks,

Christian

At 12:44 PM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>More loose change;
> We have been using Post.Office since before ver 1.0. We used to have an
>unlimited licence, but had to give that up for version 3.x . Today we
>ordered an additional 1000 mail boxes at $995 (special ISP offer at that).
>It's a great server but the company doesn't seem to want to have ISP's as
>customers. They are too concerned about selling maintenance agreements, and
>making $$$ off of corporate Intranets. Why have a listserv when you can
>make money off of people's questions?
> I think the other mail server companies are missing the boat. If they
>offer reasonable prices, unlimited licences, and an easy-to-use migration
>utility they could take Software.Com out of the ISP business. If it wasn't
>for all the accounts we would have to reenter we would seriously look at
>dumping Software.Com.
>
>
>At 09:15 PM 6/9/98 +0200, you wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I just saw that Post-Office 3.5 is available, but when I saw
>>what a Postoffice 3.1.2 customer needs to pay as upgrade
>>I feel pissed off. 99$ per 100 e-mail addresses. They even make no
>>difference if you have licensed Postoffce version 1.x; 2.x; or 3.x.
>>Everyone has to pay the same when upgrading! Thinking back on
>>the BIG price increase from version 2.x to 3.x where one got
>>500 e-mails for 495$ now 100 e-mails for 495$, I thought that they
>>would be more cooperative on upgrades after this dramatic price
>>increase. I already wonder what the upgrade price will be from version
3.5 to
>>4.0?
>>
>>When looking the what's new in Postoffice 3.5 I find that
>>only minor changes and features were added which already should have
>>been in Postoffice for a long time. Important changes such as IMAP4
>>or a web interface for customers to access their mail when no mail client
>>is available are still missing!
>>
>>They also gave the product a new name Intermail Postoffice edition.
>>
>>Another problem I have with them is that they even don't offer a mailing
>list
>>for Postoffice customers where customers can help themselves to resolve
>>problems even if problems are very rare with PostOffice. They want you to
>>buy their support packages.
>>
>>On the other hand I must admit that the Postoffice E-Mail server works
>>flawlessly since we are using it. Rock solid never had a problem, but the
>>pricing strategy of software.com is becoming a problem for us.
>>
>>Just my 5 cents,
>>
>>Christian
>>
>>
>>
> R. Laughlin
> Majordomo@essex1.com
> Essex Internet
> Sterling, IL 61081
> (815) 625-8893
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 16 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Slow login for DUN 1.2
From: "Mike@NetDotCom" <mikek@netdotcom.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:36:52 -0400

>Also, make sure that you have the following settings in:
>Start --> Settings --> Control Panel --> Network --> TCP/IP Properties -->
> DNS Config: DISable DNS (all entries should be blank)
> IP Address: Server assigned
> Gateway: empty
>

Also set the WINS Configuration to Disable WINS resolution.

It makes no sense but I have had users who would get the "Cannot negotiate a
compatible set of protocols" error when this was set to "Use DHCP"

Mike

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 17 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
From: Dave Mussulman <dave@vircom.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:50:29 -0500

At 12:44 PM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
> I think the other mail server companies are missing the boat. If they
>offer reasonable prices, unlimited licences, and an easy-to-use migration
>utility they could take Software.Com out of the ISP business. If it wasn't
>for all the accounts we would have to reenter we would seriously look at
>dumping Software.Com.

Have you looked at VOPMail? Unlimited mailboxes, unlimited domains,
unlimited listservs for $750. There's also a smaller version for small
businesses; one domain, 100 account, 10 mailing lists. Supports registry
entries, NT users, and ODBC databases as userbases, integration with RADIUS
servers. Check out http://www.vircom.com/vopmail

Yours,

Dave Mussulman
Vircom Technical Support / Voice: (514) 990-2532

mailto:support@vircom.com / http://www.vircom.com / telnet://game-master.com

Vircom's premier 3D-graphical, multiplayer adventure online game,
The 4th Coming, enters beta testing soon! Providers and players, see
http://www.the4thcoming.com for more information!

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 18 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
From: Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:52:13 -0400

Why not use something like Stats server from Media House and bill them
for the extra bandwidth?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 3:54 AM
To: ntisp@iea-software.com
Subject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

If I limited the Bandwidth for personal webpages (100 MB/month Traffic)
then
the Bandwidth limiter will be like 0.02 Kb/s...

That is why we need an alternative to generate extra Income for
Bandwidth
used.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Andersen <mander@zso.dec.com>
To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com' <ntisp@iea-software.com>
Date: June 10, 1998 1:07 AM
Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

>Why don't you just limit that bandwidth available to them?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 8:24 PM
>To: ntisp@iea-software.com
>Subject: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter
>
>
>Hello,
>
>As we have been seeing more and more personal users abusing their web
>hosting
>priviledges, we are looking into implementing a personal web host
>traffic
>limiter. What it would do is determine if the specified personal
>client's
>website had gone over the monthly allowance of web traffic. If he did,
>he
>would be referred to our "Client's website had too many hits this month
>and
>will return next month" web page.
>
>Can anyone point me to the right direction on obtaining software like
>this for
>MIIS 4.0?
>
>----
>Rudy Komsic
>President, Network Administrator - Cyberglobe Communications Inc.
>4996 Place de la Savane, Suite 200, Montreal, Quebec, H4P 1Z6
>Tel: (514)342-3883 Fax: (514)342-5139 E-Mail: rudyk@cyberglobe.net
>
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 19 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: HTTPS thru proxy
From: Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:00:30 -0400

We're using M$ proxy server 2 and it works fine with https.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Lube [mailto:brian@mpinet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 1:49 PM
To: ntisp@iea-software.com
Subject: Re: HTTPS thru proxy

Look into Wingate. I'm using it personally for my home LAN and seems to
work rather well with HTTP proxy. I'll have to check https when I get
home
tonight.

Brian Lube
MPInet

At 11:46 AM 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Does anyone have any pointers for setting up a proxy system to pass
https
>information? Do we need to add certain ports to the mapping
translations, or
>is there something else that needs done? I am evaluating several proxy
>software packages WinProxy, NetProxy, Sygate and have one application
where
>HTTPS will be needed on all client stations, and must work reliably.
>
>All input appreciated . . .
>
>Thanks!
>
>Kevin Ingram
>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 20 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Postoffice 3.5 released
From: "Dale E. Reed Jr." <daler@iea-software.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:29:55 -0700

Majordomo@essex1.com wrote:
>
> More loose change;
> We have been using Post.Office since before ver 1.0. We used to have an
> unlimited licence, but had to give that up for version 3.x . Today we
> ordered an additional 1000 mail boxes at $995 (special ISP offer at that).
> It's a great server but the company doesn't seem to want to have ISP's as
> customers. They are too concerned about selling maintenance agreements, and
> making $$$ off of corporate Intranets. Why have a listserv when you can
> make money off of people's questions?
> I think the other mail server companies are missing the boat. If they
> offer reasonable prices, unlimited licences, and an easy-to-use migration
> utility they could take Software.Com out of the ISP business. If it wasn't
> for all the accounts we would have to reenter we would seriously look at
> dumping Software.Com.

If you are running Emerlad, migrating to something like NTMail or
Mailsite
should be a snap. We have had customer do this with ease. There is an
issue of old mail, but the users move right off via the Emerald
database.

-- Dale E. Reed Jr.  (daler@iea-software.com)_________________________________________________________________       IEA Software, Inc.      |  RadiusNT, Emerald, and NT FAQs Internet Solutions for Today  |   http://www.iea-software.com

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 21 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota LimiterFrom: "Dave McLaughlin" <dave_mclaughlin@netmedia.com.au>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:37:28 +1000

I agree, we use the Media House product for this and many other purposes.They have an online demo on their website check outhttp://www.mediahouse.com/menus/frame.htm

Dave

-----Original Message-----From: Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com' <ntisp@iea-software.com>Date: Thursday, 11 June 1998 1:56Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

>Why not use something like Stats server from Media House and bill them>for the extra bandwidth?>>-----Original Message----->From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]>>>If I limited the Bandwidth for personal webpages (100 MB/month Traffic)>then>the Bandwidth limiter will be like 0.02 Kb/s...>>That is why we need an alternative to generate extra Income for>Bandwidth>used.

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 22 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota LimiterFrom: Matthew Andersen <mander@zso.dec.com>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:45:20 -0700

Has anyone come up with a way to automate this? If your hosting 400+sites it isn't something you want to sit and look through.

Matthew

-----Original Message-----From: Dave McLaughlin [mailto:dave_mclaughlin@netmedia.com.au]Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 12:37 PMTo: ntisp@iea-software.comSubject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

I agree, we use the Media House product for this and many otherpurposes.They have an online demo on their website check outhttp://www.mediahouse.com/menus/frame.htm

Dave

-----Original Message-----From: Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com' <ntisp@iea-software.com>Date: Thursday, 11 June 1998 1:56Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

>Why not use something like Stats server from Media House and bill them>for the extra bandwidth?>>-----Original Message----->From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]>>>If I limited the Bandwidth for personal webpages (100 MB/month Traffic)>then>the Bandwidth limiter will be like 0.02 Kb/s...>>That is why we need an alternative to generate extra Income for>Bandwidth>used.

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 23 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota LimiterFrom: Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:16:07 -0400

If you find one, I'd love to hear about it. I only check the knowproblem sites, don't have time to look at every one:)

-----Original Message-----From: Matthew Andersen [mailto:mander@zso.dec.com]Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 3:45 PMTo: 'ntisp@iea-software.com'Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

Has anyone come up with a way to automate this? If your hosting 400+sites it isn't something you want to sit and look through.

Matthew

-----Original Message-----From: Dave McLaughlin [mailto:dave_mclaughlin@netmedia.com.au]Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 12:37 PMTo: ntisp@iea-software.comSubject: Re: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

I agree, we use the Media House product for this and many otherpurposes.They have an online demo on their website check outhttp://www.mediahouse.com/menus/frame.htm

Dave

-----Original Message-----From: Kurt Butzin <kurt@molar.net>To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com' <ntisp@iea-software.com>Date: Thursday, 11 June 1998 1:56Subject: RE: Personal Web Page Traffic Quota Limiter

>Why not use something like Stats server from Media House and bill them>for the extra bandwidth?>>-----Original Message----->From: Rudy Komsic [mailto:rudyk@cyberglobe.net]>>>If I limited the Bandwidth for personal webpages (100 MB/month Traffic)>then>the Bandwidth limiter will be like 0.02 Kb/s...>>That is why we need an alternative to generate extra Income for>Bandwidth>used.

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 24 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?From: "Robb Bryn" <rblist@cape-fear.net>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:46:38 -0400

What is the optimum memory configuration for a Cisco 2501 routing 2 T1's(averaging 60% utilization)?

ThanksRobb Bryn

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 25 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?From: rkm@marshall.net (rkm)Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:50:12 -0400

Routing what? Subnetted? To where from where? What protocols? BGP? Staticroutes? How many routes? Access tables? Wide open? What feature set? IP?IPX? Appletalk?

> -----Original Message-----> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Robb Bryn> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 5:47 PM> To: ntisp@iea-software.com> Subject: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?>>> What is the optimum memory configuration for a Cisco 2501 routing 2 T1's> (averaging 60% utilization)?>> Thanks> Robb Bryn>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 26 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: unsubscribeFrom: caide@cvn.net (Computer Aide)Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:17:54 -0400

unsubscribe ntisphttp://www.cvn.net (717) 749-5995Cumberland Valley Network (717) 749-5545 (Fax)

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 27 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: ARGH! Can't back up!From: "Dan Waldron" <dan@diversified.com.au>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:26:36 +1000

Indeed this solution has worked <duh!><slaps head>

RgdsDan

-------------------------------------------Dan WaldronDiversified Datadan@diversified.com.auhttp://www.diversified.com.auPh: 0417-659-828 (+61-417-659-828)Fx: 02-9832-0951 (+61-2-9832-0951)

-----Original Message-----From: John Lange <radadmin@palacenet.net>To: ntisp@iea-software.com <ntisp@iea-software.com>Date: Thursday, 11 June 1998 1:03Subject: Re: ARGH! Can't back up!

>Set the Arcana Schedular to operate as Administrator and give the Admin>password.>>JOhn :}>>>John C. Lange, Sr. PALACE dot NET, INC.>microjl@palacenet.net MICRO-TECH Computers, Inc.>608.742.1601 & 6980 2800 New Pinery Road>http://www.palacenet.net/ Portage, WI 53901>Visit our online store @ http://www.microt.com/>Authorized iPSwitch WebVar @ http://www.microt.com/iPSwitch/index.html>> --- __o> --- _-\<,_ Fastest Service in Town> --- (_)/ (_)>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 28 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?From: Robb Bryn <rbryn@cape-fear.net>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:02:42 -0400

Simple config. 8 static routes, IP only. Being used as border router between us and MCI.

Robb

> -----Original Message-----> From: rkm [mailto:rkm@marshall.net]> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 5:54 PM> To: ntisp@iea-software.com> Subject: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?> > > Routing what? Subnetted? To where from where? What protocols? > BGP? Static> routes? How many routes? Access tables? Wide open? What > feature set? IP?> IPX? Appletalk?> > > > > -----Original Message-----> > From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com> > [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Robb Bryn> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 5:47 PM> > To: ntisp@iea-software.com> > Subject: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?> >> >> > What is the optimum memory configuration for a Cisco 2501 > routing 2 T1's> > (averaging 60% utilization)?> >> > Thanks> > Robb Bryn> >> >

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 29 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?From: Albert Churba <Albert@dialisdn.com>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:26:06 -0400

Our remote 2500 routers are configured with a 16 Meg SIMM and 8 Meg Flash running 11.2.13p1. 16 Meg Cisco memory is under $100 form people like Admore Memory 800-213-2231. The 60% utilization is kinda high for a 2500 series router. You will feel the bog on the router above 45%, and memory probably wont help it. We recently changed our backbone router to a 3640 and can feel the difference. (8 T1's & 100MB Ethernet).

-----Original Message-----From: Robb Bryn [SMTP:rbryn@cape-fear.net]Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 9:03 PMTo: 'ntisp@iea-software.com'Subject: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?

Simple config. 8 static routes, IP only. Being used as border router between us and MCI.

Robb

> -----Original Message-----> From: rkm [mailto:rkm@marshall.net]> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 5:54 PM> To: ntisp@iea-software.com> Subject: RE: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?>>> Routing what? Subnetted? To where from where? What protocols?> BGP? Static> routes? How many routes? Access tables? Wide open? What> feature set? IP?> IPX? Appletalk?>>>> > -----Original Message-----> > From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com> > [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Robb Bryn> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 5:47 PM> > To: ntisp@iea-software.com> > Subject: Optimum memory config for Cisco 2501?> >> >> > What is the optimum memory configuration for a Cisco 2501> routing 2 T1's> > (averaging 60% utilization)?> >> > Thanks> > Robb Bryn> >>>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 30 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: [data] ANNOUNCEMENT: RadiusNT 2.5 ReleasesFrom: "Howard Brooks" <admin@iamnow.net>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:53:34 -0400

Where can I find this new RADIUSNT, please

Howard Brooks - President - IamNet, Inc. - http://www.iamnow.netYour one stop Internet service, support and solutions shop.-----Original Message-----From: Sheryl Stover <sds@iea-software.com>To: lezm@bynet.com <lezm@bynet.com>Cc: emerald@iea-software.com <emerald@iea-software.com>ntisp@iea-software.com <ntisp@iea-software.com>Date: Saturday, May 30, 1998 2:49 AMSubject: [data] ANNOUNCEMENT: RadiusNT 2.5 Releases

>INTRODUCING RADIUSNT 2.5!>>IEA Software is proud to announce the official release of RadiusNT>Version 2.5. In addition to the RadiusNT Standard, we are also>pleased to introduce RadiusNT ENTERPRISE Edition.>>>>All editions of RadiusNT 2.5 include the following new enhancements:>>* Dual thread design separates authentication and accounting>processes, improving performance.>>* Debugging information can be logged to a file while RadiusNT is>running as a service under Windows NT.>>* Spaces can be trimmed from both the front and rear of user namesfor>authentication and accounting.>>* Trims a "domain\" entry from DUN authentication attempts against a>users file, or>>* When authenticating against the NT SAM, uses the "domain\" section>to find the correct domain in which to authenticate.>>* RadiusNT Administrator's users and clients file editing optionshave>been added.>>* Promiscuous mode has been added to allow requests from any client>with the correct global secret.>>* Documentation has been updated to include common problems and>frequently asked questions.>>>The following ODBC features have been enhanced:>>* Separate ODBC DSN settings are allowed for the authentication and>accounting threads (as well as debug log files).>>* New advanced Server/Port Access controls, including time of day>restrictions.>>* ODBC Support for Sybase and Oracle SQL databases has been added.>>* DNIS based authentication restrictions.>>* Now supports the use of stored procedures with SQL Server for>enhanced flexibility and more configuration of database behavior.>>* Improved Manual Update for Concurrency control for out of order>accounting packets.>>>>

..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.| Message 31 |'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'Subject: Re: [data] ANNOUNCEMENT: RadiusNT 2.5 ReleasesFrom: "Dale E. Reed Jr." <daler@iea-software.com>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:12:49 -0700

Howard Brooks wrote:> > Where can I find this new RADIUSNT, please

See www.iea-software.com and the release notes for full information.

-- Dale E. Reed Jr.  (daler@iea-software.com)_________________________________________________________________       IEA Software, Inc.      |  RadiusNT, Emerald, and NT FAQs Internet Solutions for Today  |   http://www.iea-software.com