From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Fri Aug 5 22:14:03 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:14:03 -0400 Subject: [Leica] Voigtlander Snapshot Skopar 25mm f4 MC for Leica M39 Chrome $250 Message-ID: ?I will translate this into English and post the translation later today. -- -- > On Aug 5, 2022, at 3:32 PM, Mark Kronquist via LUG wrote: > > ?e mail for pix nice lens grab it I prefr PayPal thanks Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Fri Aug 5 22:14:58 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Leica] Voigtlander Snapshot Skopar 25mm f4 MC for Leica M39 Chrome $250 Message-ID: <87B78433-5038-4825-A4D2-231BE7531D16@mejac.carlsbad.ca.us> ?I will translate this into English and post the translation later today. -- -- > On Aug 5, 2022, at 3:32 PM, Mark Kronquist via LUG wrote: > > ?e mail for pix nice lens grab it I prefr PayPal thanks Mark > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Sat Aug 6 00:27:33 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 20:27:33 -0400 Subject: [Leica] English translation of posting "Voigtlander Snapshot Skopar 25mm f4 MC for Leica M39 Chrome $250" In-Reply-To: <839316B4-7E87-4371-9EA3-CDB4863B19FA@teleport.com> References: <839316B4-7E87-4371-9EA3-CDB4863B19FA@teleport.com> Message-ID: <3d3d35e6673fcbcd2a5f4710060cda09@reid.org> Translated from Mark Cronquist's obfuscated posting: I have a nice lens for sale. It is a Voigtlander Snapshot Skopar 25mm f4, multicoated. This lens is unusual in that it has has built-in focus click stops, which enables quick shots without looking. (That makes up for it not having rangefinder cams). It uses the Leica M39 lens mount, which here on the LUG we usually refer to as LTM (Leica Thread Mount) If you'd like to see a picture of it, email me (mak at teleport.com). I'm asking US$250, and I prefer payment by PayPal. From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Thu Aug 11 14:11:25 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 10:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Leica] [LRflex] OT: TVs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88AB3CDF-E927-4AB0-80C7-8833658BFF41@mejac.carlsbad.ca.us> I?m with Sonny here. The size of the screen is determined by how far from it you sit and thus how many people can watch it together. Resolution and color rendering are important regardless of screen size. 4K is important to me, and about 80% of what we watch is in 4K. It is in color rendering that OLED shines. An 84 inch 4K OLED screen shows the same pixels in the same colors as a 32 inch. They are just bigger and brighter. I no longer have cable or satellite feeds. It?s all streamed. All of the streaming channels that matter to me have mostly 4K content. Every now and then we want to watch something that is only available in 1080P, and the difference is jarring. AT&T sells a box that connects to a fast internet feed and has HDMI output but has a user interface that mimics a cable box, complete with a remote and numbered channels. It has Linux inside it and can run apps that stream other things like Acorn or Britbox or NBA basketball. (I am a big fan of NBA basketball, and a live 4K streaming feed from an NBA game is delightful. ) Also I have 4K security cameras watching the outside of my house. Being able to see a security camera feed on a big 4K screen is pretty nifty. Mostly the cameras detect rabbits and butterflies; every now and then a coyote. We?ve never had a burglar. -- > On Aug 11, 2022, at 9:48 AM, Sonny Carter via LUG wrote: > > ?I don?t think in this digital age that tv is off topic. I demand high > resolution in my camera, and my monitors, thus I want to see the tv image > at a similar quality. > > My iPad is larger viewing at 1 foot than my 50? is at ten feet. There is > very little 4 k production on Satellite or cable, though increasingly > available streaming. > > When I bought this 50?, I was planning to place it on a table where it > would be 7 feet away, the arrangement of the room and my wife?s preference > led to us placing it on a wall mount, view distance 10 feet. I think I > would have been at a sweeter spot with a 65? flat screen. > > If I had a very large viewing room, then I?d need an 84?, though I would > not need 8k for sometime. You buy size according to the viewing space. > > I spent a long part of my career in television production, seeking the > highest quality image available. I?m not satisfied with SD quality. > > I watch sporting events (imagine bicycle racing in HD from rural France > shot from the back of a motorcycle and beamed over several hops to rural > Louisiana! ) > > I watch a lot of news. It irks me when a network uses an interview done on > zoom and the guest is obviously using their low rez laptop camera. Their > phone camera would do lots better! > > I rarely go to a theater for films anymore, and the new genre of streamed > tv series is really worthwhile entertainment. > > I find the image glorious, and I can even cast pictures from my iPad to the > screen so I can enjoy my images with others. > > Not exactly a rant, but I use my tv a lot, so a great image is important to > me. > > SonC > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 7:56 AM Frank Filippone via LUG >> wrote: >> >> As a technology guy, I see no reason to buy an expensive TV, unless you >> really NEED or will use the features it offers. >> >> The price of these things drops like a rock. If there are no sources of >> .source material out there, why buy a high priced 4K dream today? >> >> Get a set that fits your room. Buy the features you will use.... >> >> I see no use for a 84" TV with an 8K screen. >> >> Except bragging rights. >> >> >> Frank Filippone >> BMWRed735i at gmail.com >> >>> On 8/10/2022 6:06 PM, Peter Klein wrote: >>> Can a guy who still watches a 21 inch TV with a picture tube (yeah, I >> know) find happiness with a 32 inch LCD TV? For movies, we have lately been >> using my wife?s ~1900 x 1000 computer screen. A 32 inch TV would fit nicely >> on the stereo cabinet in our living room. We?ve just been on a trip, and >> the 32 inch TV in the rental house we stayed in seemed big enough, at least >> watching ?character movies? rather than scenery movies. >>> >>> I keep reading how to be a really cool kid, you need at least a 65 inch >> screen with 4K and QLEDs and zone brightness and blah blah blah. I?m >> honestly not sure how much those features would matter to me. Of course, >> being a photographer, they might matter more than I think. But a bigger set >> would totally dominate our small living room, says my wife. We sit about >> 8?10 feet from the TV. >>> >>> Those of you who have been through this process, what do you think? >>> >>> -Peter >>> From my phone with tiny keys and slightly addled voice recognition------ >>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: >>> http://lrflex.furnfeather.ca/ >>> Archives are at: >>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- > Regards, > > Sonny > http://sonc.com > Natchitoches, Louisiana > 1714 > Oldest Permanent Settlement in the Louisiana Purchase > > USA > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Fri Aug 12 15:20:33 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 08:20:33 -0700 Subject: [Leica] LUG server was down but now back up Message-ID: The LUG server experienced a massive cyberattack from somewhere in West Asia (perhaps Belarus or Moldova) and was offline for several hours. I was not able to deflect the attack, but the attackers eventually got bored and went to attack someone else. It is now working again. From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Fri Aug 12 16:29:06 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 09:29:06 -0700 Subject: [Leica] LUG server was down but now back up In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Right you are. I just finished tracing it to Vitsyebsk, in Belarus. This was an unfortunate morning to have email broken, because my granddaughter Zoe Elizabeth was born a few hours ago in Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London and my daughter was frustrated that she couldn't get birth announcement emails to send. (My family email runs on the same server as the LUG). On 2022-08-12 09:21, Douglas Barry wrote: > Thanks Brian, probably Belarus rather than Moldovia although the mafia > statelet Transnistria could well be a source. We'll be hearing a lot > about the Transnistria square on Putin's Great Game chessboard before > the current war subsides. > > Douglas > From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Fri Aug 12 17:02:11 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:02:11 -0700 Subject: [Leica] the other purpose of the LUG Message-ID: <90001c5bc5e69acddf0c0c3840a590fa@mejac.carlsbad.ca.us> Not just for cats but also for grandchildren. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/bkreid/family/newbaby.jpg.html My daughter Vanessa, her husband Alex, and their second child Zoe Elizabeth. Born today in Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London. 3.2kg/7.1 lbs and all doing well. From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Sat Aug 13 22:23:33 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:23:33 -0700 Subject: [Leica] LUG server was down but now back up In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <7697598d2f1923c6b6b5339f2a4d921c@reid.org> Most cyberattacks are not targeted at specific organizations. Some are, of course, but for the most part, cyberattackers just pick IP addresses at random and start blasting at them to see what happens. In the case of the LUG, it's somewhat nonrandom. The LUG server leica-users.org is at IP address 199.5.253.5. This is part of the netblock 199.5.253.0/24, which has 255 addresses in it (199.5.253.0 through 199.5.253.254). I own that netblock. The LUG server is in a data center in Fremont, California (Hurricane Electric FMT2), which also houses thousands of other organizations and hundreds of thousands of servers. That data center normally charges $800/month for a cabinet that has room for about 30 or 40 servers. Because I was able to structure my cabinet to look like it belongs to an ISP, they let me have it free. To look like an ISP, you must meet certain requirements for netblock ownership, fiber capacity, router behavior, and traffic volume. When data centers compete for business, they brag about how many ISPs are hosted there, and my "looks a lot like an ISP" counts as one of them because the only way you might discover it is not a real ISP is to look deeply inside its customer base. (Or read this message, I suppose. I think I probably ought to delete it from the archives after a few weeks). LUG things occupy 3 of the 255 IP addresses in that netblock. LargeFormatPhotography.info occupies another one. Another major user of my IP address block is the Church of England and numerous Anglican dioceses and provinces around the world. 20 years ago my servers hosted about half of the Anglican websites in the world, but there are now good ISPs in every country and any Anglican/Episcopal group that can afford it has moved off my servers into one in their own country. This leaves my servers hosting mostly church provinces in third-world countries, plus some very visible Church of England stuff that remains on my servers because they want to. Last week the every-10-years Lambeth Conference wrapped up in Canterbury, England. Every Anglican/Episcopal bishop in the world was invited to it, and about 1200 of them attended. Mostly what they did was fight bitterly about gender and sexuality. Third-world bishops are passionately opposed to any variant sexuality, and think that anyone who doesn't share their view is possessed by Satan. Bishops from the first world are more concerned about climate, hunger, war, and refugees and are quite weary of arguing about sexuality. The big cyberattack came 5 days after the end of the Lambeth Conference. My theory is that some group from the "if you don't execute homosexuals in your country then you are possessed by the devil" camp noticed that a number of their enemies had IP addresses in my netblock and paid a cyberattack company to pound on the whole netblock. In countries that border Ukraine there are a lot of commercial cyberattack companies that charge a few thousand Euros per hour to attack anyone you would like. This one was in Belarus. The actual addresses used by the Anglican/Episcopal groups are 199.5.253.8 through .14, but that level of detail is lost on brute-force cyberattackers. During a cyberattack there is so much malicious traffic that servers often give up and shut themselves down. That is what my servers did. Like Monty Python's commercial argument service, when the paid time is up the attackers turned it off. On 2022-08-12 20:47, Frank F via LUG wrote: > When the lowly, small, and insignificant LUG is the target of a foreign > cyber attack, I think the world baddies have lost their expectations in > world domination. > Attackers, get your priorities in order. > We are not the FBI, we have no connections to nukes, we not have the > keys > to Fort Knox. > Get a life! > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 8:20 AM Brian Reid > wrote: > >> The LUG server experienced a massive cyberattack from somewhere in >> West >> Asia (perhaps Belarus or Moldova) and was offline for several hours. I >> was not able to deflect the attack, but the attackers eventually got >> bored and went to attack someone else. It is now working again. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Sat Aug 13 23:32:32 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2022 16:32:32 -0700 Subject: [Leica] LUG server was down but now back up In-Reply-To: <06ac97ad-20a9-d4a3-df05-da942c6c1c18@gmail.com> References:

<7697598d2f1923c6b6b5339f2a4d921c@reid.org> <06ac97ad-20a9-d4a3-df05-da942c6c1c18@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2022-08-13 15:45, Frank Filippone via LUG wrote: > I have > always wondered.... what does a cyber attack actually look like? Just > a whole bunch of? email traffic?? Order of magnitude, if that can be > mentioned.....? It depends on the goal of the cyberattack. Various goals include 1. Disable the servers so they cannot do anything while the attack is happening 2. Try to gain access to the server to steal information it contains 3. Try to gain access to the server to install ransomware, which is a special case of 4. Plant malware on the servers so that they will do harmful things to legitimate users 5. Be annoying (you see this a lot in attacks from teenagers) 6. Impress your friends (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_coup) The recent attack against the LUG server was a mixture of 1 and 2. To achieve goal 2, the attacker opens tens of thousands of windows and in each window makes robotic attempts at guessing login names and passwords. My servers record failed login attempts, and there is a steady background stream of about 1 failed login per second on every one of my servers. During an attack, you see maybe 100 failed login attempts per second. The server defenses can spot this and slow down their response times, waiting 10 or 20 seconds before saying "no". To achieve 100 attempts per second you have to have a pool of hundreds of IP addresses from which you can do this. The goal of most computer viruses is to allow attackers to use the virus-infected computer's IP address to launch attacks. To achieve goal 1 (usually called a Denial of Service attack, or DOS attack) the attacker needs to know about what's inside the server and do something that is known to use a lot of server-side resources. Back in the days when telephone bells were actually mechanical bells, the sound made by a telephone bell was designed to be as annoying as possible so that people would answer the phone quickly. Initiating a telephone call used a huge amount of telco resources, but once the call had been connected, those resources were released. The principle of DOS attacks keys on a similar principle. Setting up a connection to a computer uses a lot of resources on that computer; once the connection is established, it is much more efficient. To make a connection to a server computer, the client computer follows a "handshake" protocol. The client sends a request to the server. The server responds with a question. The client answers that question and makes another request. If the server accepts the request, it responds with a connection ID and the client can start talking. In normal operation this connection protocol takes a fraction of a second. But some internet services (e.g. from airplanes) are very slow, so servers usually wait 30 to 60 seconds for the expected response. While they wait, there is memory set aside on the server that holds information about what the client has asked for. DOS attacks work by clients sending the first round of the connection handshake and then exiting. The server waits and waits for the client's followup response, which never comes. Only when the server gives up waiting does it release the resources that it had been holding in anticipation of the client's response. During a DOS attack it is not unusual to see 15,000 connection requests on the server, each waiting for the reply that will never come. This means there are 15,000 blocks of memory that is not usable for anything else. Email is different, but is easer to defend against. There is a steady flow of inbound malicious email. Here is a link to a screen shot from the device I use to keep bad email out. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/bkreid/misc/Screen+Shot+2022-08-13+at+4_22_02+PM.png.html It shows an average of 40k to 50k emails per day that were directed to my netblock but rejected. There are about 2,000 valid emails per day. All of the rest are unwanted and unwelcome. From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Mon Aug 15 03:40:25 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 20:40:25 -0700 Subject: [Leica] Sunday Shot - Judy Quinn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <549a65636fa0a444711f7e2ca36e118c@mejac.carlsbad.ca.us> I am sorry for your loss. May she rest in peace and rise in glory. On 2022-08-14 20:17, Bernard Quinn via LUG wrote: > Sad news?? > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Barney/Judy.jpg.html > > > Barney From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Tue Aug 30 20:27:48 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:27:48 -0700 Subject: [Leica] A snapshot of my 2-year-old grandson Message-ID: My grandson Carter, who will be 2 years old in a few weeks, was experimenting to see which objects will sink or float in a bucket of water. He was delighted to discover that green chalk sinks quickly whereas blue chalk remained floating. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/bkreid/family/IMG_1784.jpeg.html The smudge on his face is blue chalk from an earlier experiment. From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Tue Aug 30 21:57:04 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:57:04 -0700 Subject: [Leica] A snapshot of my 2-year-old grandson nikonos In-Reply-To: <9A02DFC9-1E53-44F3-B7F6-B0F84C67D6DF@teleport.com> References: <9A02DFC9-1E53-44F3-B7F6-B0F84C67D6DF@teleport.com> Message-ID: <386957f03ca94d11f9709222c67efcf1@mejac.carlsbad.ca.us> On 2022-08-30 14:25, Mark Kronquist via LUG wrote: > a nikonos in his future? He throws my iPhone into the pool whenever he can get his hands on it. (Which is usually when I am in the pool with him; he can scramble out much faster than I can). An iPhone works fine underwater. From reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us Wed Aug 31 02:19:28 2022 From: reid at mejac.carlsbad.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 19:19:28 -0700 Subject: [Leica] A snapshot of my 2-year-old grandson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2022-08-30 15:19, Don Dory via LUG wrote: > So, starting scientific experimentation early: how deep can an IPhone > go > before increased pressure defeats the seals. When Carter was just 7 months old he managed to destroy my Apple Watch. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/bkreid/family/IMG_2125.jpeg.html I had no idea his teeth (all 4 of them) were that sharp.