TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Apr 2007 00:34:00 EDT    Volume 26 : Issue 89

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Urgent! Please read: Windows ANI Header Stack Buffer Overflow (M Solomon)
    TJX Breach Shows That Encryption Can Be Foiled (Monty Solomon)
    R u rdy 4 wrlds fastest txt msg? (Reuters News Wire)
    Re: Judge Hits Vonage With Injuction; Stop Using (T)
    Re: Judge Hits Vonage With Injuction; Stop Using  (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Judge Hits Vonage With Injuction; Stop Using (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Phone System Recommendation (T)
    Re: Spoofing Caller-ID (Mark Brader)
    No April Fools Messages This Year (Patrick Townson)

====== 25 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest, and why not
support Net Freedom Now http://www.freepress.net/netfreedom . 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:14:37 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Urgent! Please read: Windows ANI Header Stack Buffer Overflow


Vulnerability Note VU#191609
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/191609

Microsoft Windows animated cursor ANI header stack buffer overflow

Overview

Microsoft Windows contains a stack buffer overflow in the handling of 
animated cursor files. This vulnerability may allow a remote attacker 
to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial-of-service condition.

I. Description

Animated cursor files (.ani) contain animated graphics for icons and
cursors. A stack buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the way that
Microsoft Windows processes malformed animated cursor files.
Microsoft Windows fails to properly validate the size specified in the
ANI header. Note that Windows Explorer will process ANI files with
several different file extensions, such as .ani, .cur, or .ico.

Note that animated cursor files are parsed when the containing folder 
is opened or it is used as a cursor. In addition, Internet Explorer 
can process ANI files in HTML documents, so web pages and HTML email 
messages can also trigger this vulnerability.

More information on this vulnerability is available in Microsoft 
Security Advisory (935423).
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/935423.mspx

This vulnerability is being actively exploited.

II. Impact

A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary 
code or cause a denial-of-service condition.

III. Solution

We are unaware of a practical solution to this vulnerability. Until a 
fix is available, the following workarounds may reduce the chances of 
exploitation:

Configure Outlook to display messages in plain text.

An attacker may be able to exploit this vulnerability by convincing a
user to display a specially crafted HTML email. This can happen
automatically if the preview pane is enabled in your mail client.
Configuring Outlook to display email in plain text can help prevent
exploitation of this vulnerability through email. Consider the
security of fellow Internet users and send email in plain text format
when possible.

Note: The Outlook Express option for displaying messages in plain 
text will not prevent exploitation of this vulnerability. This 
workaround is only viable for systems with Microsoft Outlook.

Disable preview pane.

By disabling the preview pane in your mail client, incoming email 
messages will not be automatically rendered. This can help prevent 
exploitation of this vulnerability.

Configure Windows Explorer to use Windows Classic Folders

When Windows Explorer is configured to use the "Show common tasks in 
folders" option, HTML within a file may be processed when that file 
is selected. If the "Show common tasks in folders" is enabled, 
selecting a specially crafted HTML document in Windows Explorer may 
trigger this vulnerability. Note that the "Show common tasks in 
folders" is enabled by default. To mitigate this attack vector, 
enable the "Use Windows classic folders" option. To enable this 
option in Windows Explorer:

     * Open Windows Explorer
     * Select Folder Options from the Tools menu
     * Select the "Use Windows classic folders" option in the Tasks section

Do not follow unsolicited links.

In order to convince users to visit their sites, attackers often use
URL encoding, IP address variations, long URLs, intentional
misspellings, and other techniques to create misleading links. Do not
click on unsolicited links received in email, instant messages, web
forums, or internet relay chat (IRC) channels. Type URLs directly into
the browser to avoid these misleading links. While these are generally
good security practices, following these behaviors will not prevent
exploitation of this vulnerability in all cases, particularly if a
trusted site has been compromised or allows cross-site scripting.

Systems Affected

Vendor	Status	Date Updated
Microsoft Corporation	Vulnerable	29-Mar-2007

References

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/935423.mspx
http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_141860.htm
http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/?p=230
http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=TROJ%5FANICMOO%2EAX&VSect=T
http://secunia.com/advisories/24659/
http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20070328.html

Credit

This vulnerability was reported by McAfee.

This document was written by Jeff Gennari and Will Dormann.

Other Information

Date Public	03/29/2007
Date First Published	03/29/2007 02:23:30 PM
Date Last Updated	03/30/2007
CERT Advisory
CVE Name	CVE-2007-0038
Metric	66.60
Document Revision	27

Produced 2007 by US-CERT, a government organization

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:38:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: TJX Breach Shows that Encryption Can be Foiled


By Ross Kerber, Globe Staff  |  March 31, 2007
The Boston Globe

Encryption alone is no panacea for threats to consumer data, 
according to specialists who say the technology's limit can be seen 
in the problems reported by TJX Cos. of Framingham.

The notion of using complex math formulas to scramble electronic 
information is gaining steam as a way to protect individuals' 
privacy, an area of growing concern for retailers and banks as data 
thefts become more brazen.

But recent details to emerge on how hackers accessed the parent of 
stores including T.J. Maxx and Marshalls show how encryption can be 
defeated by clever thieves -- and suggest the breach may have been an 
inside job.

A securities filing by TJX on Wednesday disclosed that the incident 
may have compromised more than 45 million credit and debit card 
numbers, the most in any single incident. In the filing, TJX also 
stated that "we believe that the intruder had access to the 
decryption tool for the encryption software utilized by TJX."

TJX spokeswoman Sherry Lang declined to elaborate on the document, 
but outside security consultants say the language hints that a 
company employee or contractor, or someone known by an employee or 
contractor, was able to gain access to TJX's computers and obtain the 
formula needed to unscramble data.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/03/31/tjx_breach_shows_that_encryption_can_be_foiled/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:57:14 -0500
From: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: R u rdy 4 wrlds fastest txt msg?


Warm up those thumbs.

What's billed as the first text messaging competition will take place
in Los Angeles on Saturday, pitting scores of players in a race to
determine who is the fastest.

The snag is that popular text shorthand will not be allowed.

"Texting has become such a trend and kids are using texting as a form
of communication. It's become like, 'Who can text the fastest?'
Everyone thinks they are a good texter," said Amy Jones, spokeswoman
for organizers LG Electronics.

Players will compete in groups to see who can text set phrases
quickest and without errors, with the winner getting a $10,000 prize
and advancement to the finals in New York City on April 21.

Jones said 150 people had signed up and more were expected on the day.
She said the contest was the first organized text messaging
competition for cash and other prizes.

Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news and headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/newstoday.html

------------------------------

From: T <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net>
Subject: Re: Judge Hits Vonage With Injuction; Stop Using
Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:44:39 -0400


In article <telecom26.88.10@telecom-digest.org>, harold@hallikainen.com 
says:

> Patent applications should be subject to public review before grant.
> During the public review period, lots of people could review the
> application for prior art and obviousness. Expecting a patent examiner
> to do this seems impossible.

> Harold

I tend to agree. That way you could call foul on a patent before a
company like Verizon could step in and use it to try to kill a
competitor. Because that is what Vonage is, a competitor that does it
faster, better, cheaper than Verizon.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:14:51 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein@
Subject: Re: Judge Hits Vonage With Injuction; Stop Using 


On 29 Mar 2007 13:53:16 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote,

> In the Verizon case, no one has presented any suggestion that Verizon
> had not researched the patented articles on its own.

The key here is that the patents should not have been granted, because
they lacked the originality and non-obviousness that are both
requirements of patents.  The problem is that the Patent Office
doesn't pay much attention to prior art other than patents or
published journal articles.  Common knowledge and usage doesn't count.

> As to criticisms of the jury's work, presumably Vonnage had very well
> paid attorneys working for it who understood the technology.  Frankly,
> I had no idea of what Mr. Goldstein was talking about.

That, Lisa, is why civilian juries should not try patent cases.
People like you might be on them.  You clearly lack the ability to
handle it.

> If that was Vonage's defense, yes they were sure to fail.  A good
> lawyer can explain technical things to a jury in layman's terms and
> the judge can explain patent law, such as what is and what is not
> patentable.

Only if the judge lets them, based on rules that no longer work.  I
don't know how good Vonage's lawyers are.  Maybe they let this case go
in order to win at appeal, where judges actually judge.

> Let's remember that the jury's job is a "finder of fact".  In essence,
> we have "he said/she said".  The jury determines who to believe within
> the scope of the law explained by the judge.

> For example, Mr. Goldstein said:

>> the first and second destination address includes a numeric Internet
>> Protocol address; and the second destination address further
>> includes information relating to call routing via a public switched
>> telephone network.

>> No, sirree, that doesn't look at all like DNS or MX records or
>> anything else invented before 1997!

> What is DNS and MX and what does it have to do with the preceding
> statement?  Given all these "addresses" floating around, what exactly
> does one do with them?  What is Verizon claiming?  What is Vonage
> claiming in response?

The first of those paragraphs is a direct quote from the patent (a
claim).  The second was my snarky description of prior art.  You may
not understand DNS or MX records, but they have been around since the
1980s.  In this case, Verizon claims that they have a patent on
translating a name to a number, particularly applicable to the use of
the ENUM standard.  MX records, used in DNS to forward mail, have had
multiple choices (first, second) all along.  Verizon claimed the idea
as original.

> I am not an expert on patent law, but I understand that an improvement
> to an existing technology is patentable, indeed, a great many patents
> represent just that -- an improvement to an existing condition.

They have to be useful, non-obvious and original.  And then only the
improvement is patented, not all applications of the basic technology.

> Per Mr. Goldstein's argument, if he's arguing that some technology
> already existing, I don't think that matters.  It appears that Verizon
> claimed it made improvements to that technology.  Or, perhaps Verizon
> invented some basic components of VOIP communication.

No, they basically patented the DNS, as well as RADIUS (used to
validate ISP dialups since the early 1990s) and the Home Location
Register (part of cellular standards for some years now).

> Mr. Goldstein concludes by saying:

>> In other words, Verizon is abusing the patent system in order to
>> stamp out competition. What else is new?  Liars are liars.

> Frankly, that statement shows a prejudiced hostility toward Verizon.
> Verizon's a "liar"?  The court didn't say that at all.  Verizon is
> "abusive"?  The court didn't say that either.

The court didn't say they were liars.  The court was wrong.  I say 
they're liars.  I say they fooled the court.  I say you fill the 
Digest every issue with drivel where you haven't a klew what you're 
talking about, but you worship at the altar of infallible incumbent 
LECs.  So if you can't quite figure out that I'm saying that the 
court was grotesquely in error, and Verizon a bunch of liars for even 
filing the patents let alone bringing suit, then your reading skills 
are pretty bad.

> I am curious if any reputable trade journals reported on this court
> action with the same passion of Mr. Goldstein and shared his opinion.

I'm being mild about it, compared to a lot of the Internet discussion.
Trade journals nowadays are mostly written by junior journalist
wannabees who believe that you need to report two sides to every story
equally.  For example, "There was a massacre in Rwanda, which the
United Nations said was bad, but the Interahamwe said that the Tutsis
deserved it."  No, that's not good journalism.

> Another thing that troubled me was that Vonage sought to get off by
> claiming it was in the "public interest".  In other words, if I run a
> red light and smash up a Verizon truck, I shouldn't be liable for
> damages because I'm just a little guy and Verizon is this big company?
> It's in the public interest to let me slide?

No, though I have to admit that I'd give extra deference to that
particular case... ;-) but in this case Verizon had submarine patents
that it never intended to use itself, but which it filed when it saw
what its competitors were doing.  Filing a patent on a competitor's
business process in order to stop them from competing with your own,
different, process is dishonesty at best.

> No.  We have a marketplace now.  Ma Bell is long gone.

Hahahahahaha.

> (I write this as my neighborhood is being dug up to put in new cable
> TV lines, which, interestingly enough, offer telephone service and
> high speed data flow).  If some new company, like Vonage, wants a
> piece of the action, it has to do its own R&D or license patents
> from other people.

The patents were on familiar prior art. Frankly I once submitted a
preliminary patent (requires no examination but sets your filing date
for up to a year before the actual filing) on a method of carrying
VoIP that I thought was really novel, useful and not quite prior art.
After talking to leaders in VoIP gear manufacturing, I stopped work on
it, because they were happy with their existing, if less efficient,
"standards-based" approach.  It's hard to find real novelty in
VoIPland (though it does occur, usually in smaller companies).

> Lots of small companies did just that.  The companies that initially
> invented ICs were rather small compared to huge RCA and GE yet beat
> them out.  Did Vonage make itself 911 compatible yet?  Apple Computer
> started out of a garage when IBM and others were huge, and built quite
> a nice empire of its own.  It can be done by hard work and creativity.

In today's world, Apple might have been sued out of existence by
patent trolls. Patent law was tighter then.  In 1976, I actually
worked for a computer startup that had a novel design that we compared
to the Apple I and brand-new Apple II. But patenting was far from
anyone's mind.  The idea was to build and sell product.  Of course
that's why prior art is hard to find in patent records.  Unlike the
chemical industry, the computer industry doesn't have a history of
patenting everything.  (And VoIP folks are more from the computer side
then the phone side.)  Ma Bell has a long history of using questionable 
patents against competition (after Bell's own patent on Gray's
invention expired, Pupin comes to mind, selling Ma a key patent on
Heavyside's discovery), to be sure, but that's another tale.

> No one in this discussion offered any defense of Vonage's own R&D
> efforts, assuming they even have any.  What several people posted
> instead was anti-Verizon feeling.  Not liking Verizon is not the
> issue.  If Vonage is so damn superior the marketplace will follow.

Vonage doesn't need to do that much R&D.  It's not about who does R&D.
Verizon's R&D is pretty slim too nowadays -- they did a little in the
past but like SBC=>fauxATT, they now prefer to depend on suppliers.
What this is about is the use of bad patents as a way to put
competitors out of business.  If you can't succeed in the marketplace,
having more lawyers is a bad Plan B.  But it's Plan A to the ILECs.


-- 
  Fred Goldstein    k1io  fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting       http://www.ionary.com/

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Judge Hits Vonage With Injuction; Stop Using
Date: 31 Mar 2007 18:43:38 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, Vonage is not yet '911 compatible' ...

> Telcos will _not_ cooperate with the database.

I'm afraid I must disagree on several points.

Well, actually, in the case of 911, that database isn't much good.  I
understand a VOIP caller can originate from anywhere, home, at work, a
hotel thousands of miles from home; all because it's not a hard wired
physical connection, but rather a data transmission over a common
network.

In any event, VOIP has to register its customers.  Why can't VOIP
simply build its own database from its files, and transmit the address
when necessary?  Naturally, it's VOIP's responsibility to transmit the
address in the existing 911 center's protocol at their expense, not
for 911 centers to adapt for VOIP.  I know some people don't agree
with that.  But, as a rate and tax payer, I already paid for the
landline hookup, and I'm certainly not gonna pay again for a new kind
of hookup for new people who are getting a cheaper service.  I submit
that service wouldn't be so cheap if it had to meet the same
obligations as traditional services.  (That was the same situation
when MCI first came on the scene -- it wanted the easy profits but not
difficult expenses of providing long distance).

> Telco is the law! Telco only changes its ways when the Supreme Court
> requires it, and that goes all the way back beyond Carterphone to
> Kingsbury.

This reminds me of the doublestand some modern newcomers take.  A
wireless company planted an ugly new tower in our town, in total
disregard of zoning and asethetics and other concerns.  The wireless
company had FCC backing as a "common carrier" and thus was above local
regulation.  Yet when their subscribers had trouble with lousy service
and wanted out of their contracts, the same carrier said no, a
contract is a contract, it's a free market.  That's not a common
carrier, common carriers suffered under very strict consumer
protection laws.

As to Carterphone, there's one thing we need to remember.  The
regulators -- government officials didn't like it at first.  Why?
Because the original policy was to cross subsidize basic service in
the goal of everyone being able to afford a phone.  In the old days, a
no frills phone line (which included one free telephone set and all
maintenance) was quite cheap, much more so than today.  (That is,
basic service costs much more than inflation when you add in all the
charges).

One reason the phone company didn't want it was their "door to door"
free maintenance policy.  If you had a problem, in your telephone set,
wiring, or in a toll call, you dialed 611 and they took care of it.
There was no finger pointing, it was 100% Bell's responsibility.  But
after interconnection was allowed, finger pointing between vendors
began in earnest.

The problem was, then AND NOW, is that people expect the same cradle
to grave service from Bell successors AND equally cheap cross
subsidized rates.  We see posts here from people claiming Bell
successors ought to do this and that, but we don't see how the heck
this will be paid for.  In the old days that could be claimed since
high profit sectors (like business equipment rentals and toll service)
would cross subsidize it.  But that's not the case any more.

> Recall that after Carterphone, telco research and development
> flourished. And R&D is where things are at, even if much of the early
> internet R&D was through a number of good-hearted, benevolent
> anarchists who put all their work out like a free-smorgasbord lunch
> for the 'public good'.

Recall that before Carterphone there was a massive complex in New
Jersey known as Bell Laboratories.  Bell had the luxury of researching
lots of basic science, not just problems involving telephone service.
Bell Labs was responsible for the technology that consistently lowered
phone rates over time.  I understand most of Bell Labs is gone down
and the property is being redeveloped.  I'm not sure that's such a
good thing for the country.  Bell Labs came up with a lot of useful
non-telephone related stuff (for instance, a cheap shopfloor test for
lead poisoning.)  Will Vonage come up with such stuff?  I don't think
so.

> And those of us who even feebly objected to this were told -- if we
> were told at all rather than just ignored -- that no one wanted to
> bother with Administrivia, that Administrivia was sinful. The Gospel
> of the Public Good had to come first. But there has to be some sort of
> compromise. Telcos seem unwilling to allow any compromise. So, out of
> pure self-defense we cannot allow any compromise either, it would
> seem.  PAT]

Well, ever since MCI came along and skimmed the cream away from Bell,
they've been in a defensive posture.  Then you had divesture with the
ridiculous situation of people like me paying MORE for long distance
because local companies weren't allowed to "compete" even though the
whole idea was more competition.  Finally, they let local companies in
and rates -- surprise suprise -- went down, and MCI and Sprint declined.

Anyway, this is a competitive world now, the good, the bad, and the
ugly.  Did people honestly expect only the good parts of competition
to come through in 1983, and not any of the bad?  That there wouldn't
be any fraud companies?  Full sharing?

No, a safe word is not the real world, that's the old cradle-to-grave
regulated Bell System.  We threw that out, on purpose.  So get used to
fraud (remember that certain company that threatened you and then went
bankrupt taking leases with it?)  Does Ford give away its R&D to GM or
keep it for itself?  Does McDonald's give free advice and supplies to
Burger King?

As to Internet R&D, all of us certainly appreciate the great many
donated hours of research and contributions to make it possible.  But,
frankly, given the state of things, I'm not so sure that worked out so
well.  Pat, you have often described the very serious problems of
administration of ICAN.

As to "don't bother with administration", to put it another way: I
remember when "shareware" was the big rage.  That was gonna put the
"evil money grubbing" commercial software out of business.  Well, gues
what, the average consumer didn't give a damn about the author, they
just downloaded as much stuff for free as they could.  It other words,
there's no such thing as a free lunch.  If you give something away,
don't expect the recipient to respond in kind.  Somebody's still gotta
pay the rent and power bill.  The old college thing of passing the hat
doesn't work in the real world.

This "public good" stuff might have worked when the Internet was in a
closed and controlled college community.  But indeed, even there
college kids aren't angels either, they stole long distance, music,
etc when they could.

As to this patent business, Verizon went to court.  It won.  Other
times in the past it lost.

So Verizon and all the others -- big and small -- are gonna do what
they're gonna do.  They're in business.  That's what businesses do --
ALL businesses.

If you don't like it, go back to pre-divesture, and have the FCC and
PUCs approve every time a Bell officer wants to take a coffee break.

------------------------------

From: T <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net>
Subject: Re: Phone System Recommendation
Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:49:20 -0400


In article <telecom26.88.6@telecom-digest.org>, david.early@gmail.com 
says:

> We are in the market for a new phone system.  The company has
> approximately 35 employees with 3 - 5 remote workers we want to tie in
> with VOIP connections.  We currently have an AT&T Partner system that
> has served us very well.  Our needs are fairly simple and the system
> should be easy to maintain with a broad support base.  We are
> considering Avaya, Intertel, Cisco and 3Com.  I would appreciate any
> good recommendations.

Asterisk. You can use any open source VoIP phone, the sofware is open
source, runs on Linux. It's a bit of a pain to set up but the cost
savings are very high.

------------------------------

From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Spoofing Caller-ID
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:05:29 -0000


Carl Moore appears to write:

> http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=3Dconsumer&id=3D5133932
> This link is to "When Caller ID Gets Spoofed".

That's =, not =3D.  Mixing MIME-capable and non-capable tools strikes again.


-- 
Mark Brader, Toronto   |  "I wish to God these calculations had been
msb@vex.net            |   executed by steam!"  -- Charles Babbage, 1821


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, it did!  That's one of the
problems I have each Friday afternoon with Telecom Update from
Canada as well,  trying to sort the MIME out while keeping the text
of the rest. Since January, when Telecom Update decided to discontinue
their text edition, I have struggled with that problem. There are
times I feel so obsolete -- I really do -- in trying to maintain a 
TEXT-BASED digest, which as most of you will know, is all we had back
in the 1980s. I've mentioned to John Riddell maybe I can continue to
offer Telecom Update here, or maybe I will have to stop it sometime
soon.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: Patrick Townson <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: No April Fools Messages This Year?
Date: Mon Apr 02, 2007 00:00:00 GMT 


Thus far, none of the usual April Fool messages which people usually
try to pass off on the Digest. I am quite humbled.



TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as
Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums.  It is
also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest

*****************************************************************
Wild Jack Casino has long been recognized as one of the best online 
casinos on the internet.  While specializing in blackjack, Wild Jack 
offers more than 300 exciting online real-money casino games, 
including online slots, roulette, keno, craps, and more.  Now, this 
top _Blackjack Online Kasino_ http://de.wildjack.com/ is available 
in Germany too.  Take advantage of our generous sign-up bonuses, our 
great promotions, our big payouts, and our courteous and professional 
customer support team.  Join Wildjack.de today!
*****************************************************************

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2007 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.

PAT

End of TELECOM Digest V26 #89
*****************************