Announcement

Collapse

Forum etiquette

Our mission ...

This forum is part of our mission to promote the preservation of vintage computers through education and outreach. (In real life we also run events and have a museum.) We encourage you to join us, participate, share your knowledge, and enjoy.

This forum has been around in this format for over 15 years. These rules and guidelines help us maintain a healthy and active community, and we moderate the forum to keep things on track. Please familiarize yourself with these rules and guidelines.


Remain civil and respectful

There are several hundred people who actively participate here. People come from all different backgrounds and will have different ways of seeing things. You will not agree with everything you read here. Back-and-forth discussions are fine but do not cross the line into rude or disrespectful behavior.

Conduct yourself as you would at any other place where people come together in person to discuss their hobby. If you wouldn't say something to somebody in person, then you probably should not be writing it here.

This should be obvious but, just in case: profanity, threats, slurs against any group (sexual, racial, gender, etc.) will not be tolerated.


Stay close to the original topic being discussed
  • If you are starting a new thread choose a reasonable sub-forum to start your thread. (If you choose incorrectly don't worry, we can fix that.)
  • If you are responding to a thread, stay on topic - the original poster was trying to achieve something. You can always start a new thread instead of potentially "hijacking" an existing thread.



Contribute something meaningful

To put things in engineering terms, we value a high signal to noise ratio. Coming here should not be a waste of time.
  • This is not a chat room. If you are taking less than 30 seconds to make a post then you are probably doing something wrong. A post should be on topic, clear, and contribute something meaningful to the discussion. If people read your posts and feel that their time as been wasted, they will stop reading your posts. Worse yet, they will stop visiting and we'll lose their experience and contributions.
  • Do not bump threads.
  • Do not "necro-post" unless you are following up to a specific person on a specific thread. And even then, that person may have moved on. Just start a new thread for your related topic.
  • Use the Private Message system for posts that are targeted at a specific person.


"PM Sent!" messages (or, how to use the Private Message system)

This forum has a private message feature that we want people to use for messages that are not of general interest to other members.

In short, if you are going to reply to a thread and that reply is targeted to a specific individual and not of interest to anybody else (either now or in the future) then send a private message instead.

Here are some obvious examples of when you should not reply to a thread and use the PM system instead:
  • "PM Sent!": Do not tell the rest of us that you sent a PM ... the forum software will tell the other person that they have a PM waiting.
  • "How much is shipping to ....": This is a very specific and directed question that is not of interest to anybody else.


Why do we have this policy? Sending a "PM Sent!" type message basically wastes everybody else's time by making them having to scroll past a post in a thread that looks to be updated, when the update is not meaningful. And the person you are sending the PM to will be notified by the forum software that they have a message waiting for them. Look up at the top near the right edge where it says 'Notifications' ... if you have a PM waiting, it will tell you there.

Copyright and other legal issues

We are here to discuss vintage computing, so discussing software, books, and other intellectual property that is on-topic is fine. We don't want people using these forums to discuss or enable copyright violations or other things that are against the law; whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. Do not use our resources for something that is legally or morally questionable.

Our discussions here generally fall under "fair use." Telling people how to pirate a software title is an example of something that is not allowable here.


Reporting problematic posts

If you see spam, a wildly off-topic post, or something abusive or illegal please report the thread by clicking on the "Report Post" icon. (It looks like an exclamation point in a triangle and it is available under every post.) This send a notification to all of the moderators, so somebody will see it and deal with it.

If you are unsure you may consider sending a private message to a moderator instead.


New user moderation

New users are directly moderated so that we can weed spammers out early. This means that for your first 10 posts you will have some delay before they are seen. We understand this can be disruptive to the flow of conversation and we try to keep up with our new user moderation duties to avoid undue inconvenience. Please do not make duplicate posts, extra posts to bump your post count, or ask the moderators to expedite this process; 10 moderated posts will go by quickly.

New users also have a smaller personal message inbox limit and are rate limited when sending PMs to other users.


Other suggestions
  • Use Google, books, or other definitive sources. There is a lot of information out there.
  • Don't make people guess at what you are trying to say; we are not mind readers. Be clear and concise.
  • Spelling and grammar are not rated, but they do make a post easier to read.
See more
See less

The New Forums

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by vwestlife View Post
    Are any of them, besides Erik, active in the forum? Especially during a major overhaul like this, I think they should all be monitoring the feedback directly from the users here, rather than waiting for someone to knock on their door.
    I'm relaying information, comments and concerns to them. So while they might not be visible, they should be active.

    Comment


      Originally posted by vol.2 View Post

      Not sure if you are seriously hunting for an answer, and this wasn't just rhetorical...

      I think there are a certain number of people that like to connect on older computers that can't handle SSL. I'm not super knowledgeable about this stuff, but I would imagine there are some users here with lots of vintage microcomputers. Maybe C64 wouldn't be able to?
      I have a fair share of vintage stuff, mostly Tandy and Commodore, and there's no way they are ever going to connect to this board. The board is here for information about vintage computer items, not a dock to use them. I'm all for a well protected site.
      Surely not everyone was Kung-fu fighting

      Comment


        Originally posted by vol.2 View Post

        Not sure if you are seriously hunting for an answer, and this wasn't just rhetorical...

        I think there are a certain number of people that like to connect on older computers that can't handle SSL. I'm not super knowledgeable about this stuff, but I would imagine there are some users here with lots of vintage microcomputers. Maybe C64 wouldn't be able to?
        I was mostly being rhetorical, but the question comes from the context of running a site on the public internet. Doing this without SSL is simply not something you can do anymore, even if your site is purely informational. But from the context of a tinkerer at home, I can see why you'd be SSL adverse. But do we really put everyone at risk simply to allow a few old computers to use this site? Especially since there are ways for individuals to work around this in a manner that allows them to take on the risk at a very local level and not put others at risk. It is pretty easy to setup a proxy on your local network that can strip SSL from any website, not only this one, and then you can continue to use a non-SSL version of the internet.

        IBM 5160 - 360k, 1.44Mb Floppies, NEC V20, 8087-3, 45MB MFM Hard Drive, Vega 7 Graphics, IBM 5154 Monitor running MS-DOS 5.00
        IBM PCJr Model 48360 640kb RAM, NEC V20,, jrIDE Side Cart, 360kb Floppy drives running MS-DOS 5.00
        Evergreen Am5x86-133 64Mb Ram, 8gb HDD, SB16 in a modified ATX case running IBM PC-DOS 7.10

        Comment


          As I have pointed out several times, there are a number of solutions that can proxy connections to modern TLS and Javascript enabled sites for machines not capable of direct connection.

          Also, the VCF board is fully aware of what goes on here. Feel free to contact any of them if you have a concern that you feel isn't been addressed by the moderation team.

          Thanks!
          - Alex

          Comment


            Originally posted by Robbbert View Post
            Am I imagining things, or have the social media buttons disappeared?
            Yes! Thanks to the mod/admin team for that. It feels a better place already.

            Originally posted by Chuck(G) View Post
            Now that the FB and Twitter bits have been eliminated from the side panel, how about putting the poster's location there?
            This is a great suggestion. I hope it is being heard, by someone, somewhere, who can do something about it.

            I would like to express my opinion that the communication of the admin team with this forum's user base on matters regarding the forum migration has been poor. Why are they mostly absent and why are they not telling much to us, the users, here?

            Comment


              This is going quite off-topic, but anyway...
              Originally posted by lutiana View Post
              With regards to TLS 1.0, that should not be kept around at all. It is trivial to break into a TLS 1.0 stream, and this is why is has been nearly completely deprecated.
              It is true TLS 1.0 has been officially deprecated (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8996/ , one month ago).

              Your other assertion, regarding breaking TLS 1.0 to be trivial, begs for a citation. I do not believe that is true. The "danger" in TLS 1.0, as it stands today, is purely theoretical.

              Originally posted by lutiana View Post
              You cannot even get a cert now that will support it, at least not from any reputable provider. Oh, and for the record, the current cert on this site only supports TLS 1.2 and 1.3, it does not support TLS1.0 or 1.1.
              You can get a SSL certificate today and use it no problem with an OpenSSL implementation that supports only TLS 1.0. TLS is a transport protocol, whose features are orthogonal to the PKI certificates themselves.

              About this forum's TLS, yes I see I am getting email from this forum now in plain text while in flight, as this forum's email server is currently setup to refuse to speak TLS 1.0 (which is the only TLS my personal email server supports). Surely, plain text must be much more secure than opportunistic TLS 1.0 for the SMTP stream...

              My logs:
              Code:
              Apr 19 23:20:36 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: warning: 104.192.220.12: address not listed for hostname vintage-computer.com
              Apr 19 23:20:36 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: connect from unknown[104.192.220.12]
              Apr 19 23:20:37 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: setting up TLS connection from unknown[104.192.220.12]
              Apr 19 23:20:37 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: warning: network_biopair_interop: error reading 5 bytes from the network: Connection reset by peer
              Apr 19 23:20:37 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: SSL_accept error from unknown[104.192.220.12]: -1
              Apr 19 23:20:37 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: lost connection after STARTTLS from unknown[104.192.220.12]
              Apr 19 23:20:37 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: disconnect from unknown[104.192.220.12]
              Apr 19 23:20:37 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: warning: 104.192.220.12: address not listed for hostname vintage-computer.com
              Apr 19 23:20:37 gran postfix/smtpd[1608]: connect from unknown[104.192.220.12]
              That above is a SMTP transaction were the STARTTLS verb fails, because the TLS negotiation has failed among both email servers, and then the forum's email server is reconnecting to retry to send the email now without using the STARTTLS verb, i.e., in plain text. So much for security!

              As a comparison, Google is currently DISREGARDING RFC-8996 and accepting email through TLS 1.0-encrypted SMTP streams, because some crypto is always better than no crypto. My logs:
              Code:
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/pickup[5182]: 276FE1200: uid=1000 from=<XXXXXX@YYYYYYYY.com>
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/cleanup[6624]: 276FE1200: message-id=<20210420194229.GC2538@YYYYYYYYY.com>
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/qmgr[926]: 276FE1200: from=<XXXXXX@YYYYYYYY.com>, size=843, nrcpt=3 (queue active)
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/smtp[6626]: setting up TLS connection to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/smtp[6626]: certificate verification failed for gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com: num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/smtp[6626]: certificate verification failed for gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com: num=27:certificate not trusted
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/smtp[6626]: certificate verification failed for gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com: num=7:certificate signature failure
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/smtp[6626]: Unverified: subject_CN=mx.google.com, issuer=GTS CA 1O1
              Apr 20 21:42:32 gran postfix/smtp[6626]: TLS connection established to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com: TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)
              Apr 20 21:42:34 gran postfix/smtp[6626]: 276FE1200: to=<ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ@gmail.com>, relay=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[173.194.76.26]:25, delay=2.4, delays=0.24/0.14/0.49/1.5, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 OK 1618947754 u10si43968wri.125 - gsmtp)
              Apr 20 21:42:34 gran postfix/qmgr[926]: 276FE1200: removed
              I think we can assume that Google/Gmail know email. If TLS 1.0 is good enough for them, it should be fine also here. But that is only my opinion.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Pepinno View Post
                You can get a SSL certificate today and use it no problem with an OpenSSL implementation that supports only TLS 1.0. TLS is a transport protocol, whose features are orthogonal to the PKI certificates themselves.
                Right, I stand corrected, my apologies there. I brain farted on TLS being a transport thing and not a certificate thing,

                IBM 5160 - 360k, 1.44Mb Floppies, NEC V20, 8087-3, 45MB MFM Hard Drive, Vega 7 Graphics, IBM 5154 Monitor running MS-DOS 5.00
                IBM PCJr Model 48360 640kb RAM, NEC V20,, jrIDE Side Cart, 360kb Floppy drives running MS-DOS 5.00
                Evergreen Am5x86-133 64Mb Ram, 8gb HDD, SB16 in a modified ATX case running IBM PC-DOS 7.10

                Comment


                  I have a question about the layout and view of messages in my inbox. The default view seems to be "conversations" rather than individual messages. I CANNOT STAND THIS. It jumbles all the messages together. I dont like this view in any email client which for some reason everyone wants to push now a days. Is it possible to change it to single messages rather than the "conversation" view?
                  I am looking an a message in the top of my inbox, and the preview to the text goes all the way back a couple months ago to when we first started emailing, rather than the latest message. Its just making it impossible to navigate my messages.

                  Comment


                    So who was the genius who decided that updating the forums meant that all of my message history would be deleted?

                    Comment


                      Well, it it were possible to dial back the encryption shackles a bit, that would improve compatibility a bit. Winworldpc.com and soylentnews.org are two examples of sites that will load in Firefox2/Seamonkey 1.1. FirefoxRZ and Retrozilla have support for TLS 1.2, but they have issues with a lot of sites. What I recall reading was something about lack of support for "virtual hosts" using HTTPS, or something like that.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by RetroDan View Post
                        So who was the genius who decided that updating the forums meant that all of my message history would be deleted?
                        Please don't take that tone here ... we are all volunteers.

                        All of my message history back to 2006 is available. Are you looking in the right place? Is anybody else having this problem?

                        Comment


                          I get “Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page” when I try to view my messages.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by jafir View Post
                            I get “Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page” when I try to view my messages.
                            I can't spot a problem with your userID and I don't have access to the vBulletin logs.

                            Please open a new thread in the "Vintage Computer Forum Support" area and try to include a screen shot if you can.

                            Comment


                              If you think this new forum layout is bad, if you've ever sold anything on eBay, take a look at what they just did to the My Selling page. eBay is bragging about it being "streamlined" and having "less clutter", but it also has drastically less useful information -- it now shows only two items per screen, great for sellers who have hundreds of items listed!

                              https://community.ebay.com/t5/Sellin...n/m-p/31804509

                              So, Board of Directors, thank you for at least not screwing it up that badly!

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by vwestlife View Post
                                If you think this new forum layout is bad, if you've ever sold anything on eBay, take a look at what they just did to the My Selling page. eBay is bragging about it being "streamlined" and having "less clutter", but it also has drastically less useful information -- it now shows only two items per screen, great for sellers who have hundreds of items listed!

                                https://community.ebay.com/t5/Sellin...n/m-p/31804509

                                So, Board of Directors, thank you for at least not screwing it up that badly!
                                The exact same thing just happened to me 15 minutes ago! Damn it! I have been fighting with them for years to keep the classic look. My wife was forced into the new seller hub view on her account which is just USELESS! Now mine is complete crap! Why cant they just leave it alone.. Ah, the ebay change is far worse than anything on this forum!

                                I F%$cking hate eBay.. I really do.. A model for how not to run any business

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X