Re: Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 21:48 +0200, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > We'll see -- or rather (hopefully) we won't (see any more of these bothersome > bounces). I don't get them anymore :) mfg, Ali Akcaagac
Re: Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Ali Akcaagac wrote: Hello, I received feedback from them today and they said that they recently had a lot of issues with bouncing back and that they finally solved this issue. We therefore should not receive anything from them anymore. greetings, Ali Akcaagac We'll see -- or rather (hopefully) we won't (see any more of these bothersome bounces). Best regards, Tony.
Re: Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Hello, I received feedback from them today and they said that they recently had a lot of issues with bouncing back and that they finally solved this issue. We therefore should not receive anything from them anymore. greetings, Ali Akcaagac On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 12:13 +0200, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > It's not half a dozen unwanted emails. It's just one email address, i.e., > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- these false bounces all come from the same > source. If you feel up to it, write [EMAIL PROTECTED] telling them their > mail routers are misconfigured (you can use my mail to Yakov in this thread > as > a kind of boilerplate). You can also point him to > http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html . But don't expect quick and > accurate action, that postmaster could quite possibly be an arrogant > blockhead > wo won't do anything you suggest to him "for his own good".
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
> > Seeing as you've identified the location and apparent fix, why not you? > Because I don't want to maintain my own set of patches, that would be more tiring than using upper-case commands. On Yahoo!7 Messenger - IM with Windows Live Messenger friends. http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On 10/4/06, Peter Hodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's about 4 lines of vim source code which you need to remove so that you can have lower-case user commands. You're not interested in making your own patch? Seeing as you've identified the location and apparent fix, why not you? Anyway, I felt there was no need to provide a patch before a we had discussion on the merit (or acceptance) of such a patch. nikolai
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
> Argh. This is exactly why all the hacks one has to employ never > really quite make it. There's always some base you haven't covered, > some point you can't reach. > > Seriously, if people want to f**k up their session, let them. No one > who isn't prepared to get burned is going to override :quit. No one > who isn't prepared for an unpredictable future (is there a second > kind?) is going to install a plugin that adds a command called :vfold. > Let us who really want our Vim to be what we want it to be have the > tools to make it so. I'm obviously not the only person who feels this > way. And I haven't even spent time writing a plugin to circumvent > this, like Hari has. There's about 4 lines of vim source code which you need to remove so that you can have lower-case user commands. You're not interested in making your own patch? regards, Peter On Yahoo!7 Messenger - IM with Windows Live Messenger friends. http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On 10/3/06, Hari Krishna Dara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nikolai Weibull wrote: > One thing that really annoys me with Vim is the limits it emposes on > what names are legal for user-defined functions and commands. Another oddity in using this approach is the history. If you execute: :command what will end up getting stored in the history is: :Command which means you have to remember to use the righ case while retrieving the last command (:com will not work). Argh. This is exactly why all the hacks one has to employ never really quite make it. There's always some base you haven't covered, some point you can't reach. Seriously, if people want to f**k up their session, let them. No one who isn't prepared to get burned is going to override :quit. No one who isn't prepared for an unpredictable future (is there a second kind?) is going to install a plugin that adds a command called :vfold. Let us who really want our Vim to be what we want it to be have the tools to make it so. I'm obviously not the only person who feels this way. And I haven't even spent time writing a plugin to circumvent this, like Hari has. nikolai
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 at 10:30am, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > Nikolai Weibull wrote: > > On 10/1/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Nikolai Weibull wrote: > >> > >> > One thing that really annoys me with Vim is the limits it emposes on > >> > what names are legal for user-defined functions and commands. I know > >> > the reason for these restrictions, but I don't think they make much > >> > sense, especially so for user-defined commands. I realize that > >> > overriding :quit does have its implications, but done carefully, this > >> > does allow for some interesting effects. > >> > > >> > So, why not lift the restrictions on valid names for user-defined > >> > functions and commands? > >> > > >> > That is, give me good reasons for why they should be maintained and > >> > I'll drop this request. > >> > >> Predictability. > > > > As in what? That :quit always works as documented? Sure, that's > > great, but if that's the problem, the restriction should be limited to > > commands already defined. And what happens when more commands are > > added? Hell, then they'll break the user-defined commands with the > > same name. Big deal; that's life, you'll get over it - everyone does, > > eventually. > > > > I really don't see the big difference between user-defined commands > > clashing with built-in commands and user-defined commands clashing > > with each other. It'll happen; unless you start adding prefixes or > > namespaces or some other way of separating your commands. But then > > you lose out on simplicity. You don't want to type :NOWCommand (given > > that "NOW" is "my" prefix), and I don't want to type :Command; I want > > to type :command. > > > > Sure, it only saves my fingers from giving up on me for so long, but > > every little bit helps. > > > > I guess my problem is that I want - and I've always wanted - the > > flexibility of Emacs coupled with the simplicity and efficiency of > > Vim's command set and modes. I guess that's why I nitpick at things > > such as this. > > > > nikolai > > > > :command -bar Command ... > :cabbrev command Command > > and then you'll wonder why you can't define a new user-command but it's your > funeral. > > It's still not perfect though; the cabbrev will be expanded even if it's not > at the start (but that may be not-so-bad if you use ":verbose command", > ":vertical command", etc.) > > > Best regards, > Tony. You can use the Vim7 abbreviation in combination of getcmdpos() and getcmdtype() to make this a lot more reliable, and avoid expanding everywhere. I have created the cmdalias.vim plugin (http://www.vim.org/script.php?script_id=745) just to address this problem (as it bothered me as well). The only case this breaks is the debug mode because of a bug in Vim (the expression itself is executed in the debug mode). Another oddity in using this approach is the history. If you execute: :command what will end up getting stored in the history is: :Command which means you have to remember to use the righ case while retrieving the last command (:com will not work). -- HTH, Hari __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > 3. During handshaking between Vim mailbot and KNBT incoming mail > exchanger, the latter notices that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is unknown and > immediately gives a 550 (or something) error reply to the "RCPT TO > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" line. Most mailers these days are not configured to do this. It makes it way to easy to quickly troll a domain for valid addresses for generating spam. I suspect this is how almost all mailers are going to work. It gets worse when mailing lists put themselves in a reply-to header. Then everyone on the list gets the bounce. There sure have been a lot of replies to a message with a sugject starting with "Do Not Reply To This Message..." Dave
Re: Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 12:13 +0200, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > It's not half a dozen unwanted emails. It's just one email address, i.e., > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- these false bounces all come from the same > source. If you feel up to it, write [EMAIL PROTECTED] telling them their > mail routers are misconfigured (you can use my mail to Yakov in this thread > as > a kind of boilerplate). You can also point him to > http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html . But don't expect quick and > accurate action, that postmaster could quite possibly be an arrogant > blockhead > wo won't do anything you suggest to him "for his own good". I just wrote a nice email to their account manager and director Scott V. Fainor and Nancy Billiard. And hope they take some actions against this. mfg, Ali Akcaagac
Re: Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Ali Akcaagac wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:34 +0200, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: You can either blacklist [EMAIL PROTECTED] in your mail reader (e.g. by creating a new filter rule, 'if From: is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" then Move to Trash'), or treat it in whatever manner you treat spam. Hello, I'm getting these mails as well I think this is definately no solution. Think about new people who like joining this mailinglist in regard of contributing or giving feedback to this list. You definately don't want them to blacklist half a dozen "unwanted" emails before they can finally start posting something or participating to this mailinglist. mfg, Ali Akcaagac It's not half a dozen unwanted emails. It's just one email address, i.e., [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- these false bounces all come from the same source. If you feel up to it, write [EMAIL PROTECTED] telling them their mail routers are misconfigured (you can use my mail to Yakov in this thread as a kind of boilerplate). You can also point him to http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html . But don't expect quick and accurate action, that postmaster could quite possibly be an arrogant blockhead wo won't do anything you suggest to him "for his own good". Best regards, Tony.
Re: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Nikolai Weibull wrote: [...] So anyway, I guess my request is for Felix von Leitner, or whoever doesn't maintain this mailing list anymore (according to earlier discussions on similar subjects), to remove the offending email address from the mailing address. Thanks. nikolai P.S. Sorry about the extra traffic about this. D.S. The problem is, not only the KNBT pseudo-bounce is misdirected, it is incomplete. In particular, it doesn't say which address was not found, so all Felix (or Bram or someone) can know is that "someone" @knbt.com is no longer a valid address. But they can't go forcibly unsubscribing _every_ @knbt.com subscriber, can they? Quite probably there are more than one. Best regards, Tony.
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On 10/3/06, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :command -bar Command ... :cabbrev command Command and then you'll wonder why you can't define a new user-command but it's your funeral. ;-) It's a solution, but it's not great; still, better than nothing. nikolai
Re: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Yakov Lerner wrote: Me too. I think it means that (1) "email address at KNBT that is unavailable or no longer valid", and (2) it's time for you to add special filtering rule to your mail reader. I mean, who said mail bot cannot post to mailing list ? Yakov [...] The mailbot is not posting to the mailing list. What happens is at follows: 1. Yakov Lerner posts to mailing list 2. Vim mailbot sends it to all subscribed addresses. 3. One of those subscribers is (let's say) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. KNBT mail router accepts the mail. 5. KNBT mail router (maybe another one) notices that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is unknown 6. KNBT mail router sends a pseudo-bounce to the apparent author, i.e., Yakov Lerner. This is the message that you see; the vim mailbot doesn't. This points at a misconfiguration in KNBT's routers: what should happen is as follows: ... 3. During handshaking between Vim mailbot and KNBT incoming mail exchanger, the latter notices that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is unknown and immediately gives a 550 (or something) error reply to the "RCPT TO [EMAIL PROTECTED]" line. 4. The mail itself is not transmitted to KNBT 5. Vim mailbot notices that [EMAIL PROTECTED] couldn't be reached and remembers which list post couldn't be sent to him. 6. After some time (or some number of failed emails), Vim listbot tries to send a recap email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] telling him which mails were rejected. 7. Again, KNBT incoming mail exchanger refuses the transaction. 8. Vim listbot tries to send a probe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9. Again, KNBT inmx refuses the transaction 10. Vim listbot unsubscribes [EMAIL PROTECTED] This second scenario is much cleaner in that we never see any pseudo-bounces, and eventually the unsubscribe does take place. Best regards, Tony.
Re: Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:34 +0200, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > You can either blacklist [EMAIL PROTECTED] > in your mail reader (e.g. by creating a new filter rule, > 'if From: is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" then Move > to Trash'), or treat it in whatever manner you treat spam. Hello, I'm getting these mails as well I think this is definately no solution. Think about new people who like joining this mailinglist in regard of contributing or giving feedback to this list. You definately don't want them to blacklist half a dozen "unwanted" emails before they can finally start posting something or participating to this mailinglist. mfg, Ali Akcaagac
Re: Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Nikolai Weibull wrote: I keep getting this f**king message every time I post to vim-dev. Seriously, wtf? nikolai (awaiting another notification for this mail not getting through) -- Forwarded message -- From: System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2 Oct 2006 14:19:05 -0400 Subject: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions? To: Nikolai Weibull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] Yeah, I get them too. It means someone at knbt discontinued his mail account (or got it cancelled) without going to the trouble of unsubscribing from Vim. Since the pseudo-bounce does not include the address in question, there's no way to know who it was. You can either blacklist [EMAIL PROTECTED] in your mail reader (e.g. by creating a new filter rule, 'if From: is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" then Move to Trash'), or treat it in whatever manner you treat spam. And since the bounce doesn't go thru the list (it goes direct to the poster), no one can filter the bounces away in our place. Best regards, Tony.
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On 10/3/06, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nikolai Weibull wrote: > On 10/1/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Nikolai Weibull wrote: >> >> > One thing that really annoys me with Vim is the limits it emposes on >> > what names are legal for user-defined functions and commands. I know >> > the reason for these restrictions, but I don't think they make much >> > sense, especially so for user-defined commands. I realize that >> > overriding :quit does have its implications, but done carefully, this >> > does allow for some interesting effects. >> > >> > So, why not lift the restrictions on valid names for user-defined >> > functions and commands? >> > >> > That is, give me good reasons for why they should be maintained and >> > I'll drop this request. >> >> Predictability. > > As in what? That :quit always works as documented? Sure, that's > great, but if that's the problem, the restriction should be limited to > commands already defined. And what happens when more commands are > added? Hell, then they'll break the user-defined commands with the > same name. Big deal; that's life, you'll get over it - everyone does, > eventually. > > I really don't see the big difference between user-defined commands > clashing with built-in commands and user-defined commands clashing > with each other. It'll happen; unless you start adding prefixes or > namespaces or some other way of separating your commands. But then > you lose out on simplicity. You don't want to type :NOWCommand (given > that "NOW" is "my" prefix), and I don't want to type :Command; I want > to type :command. > > Sure, it only saves my fingers from giving up on me for so long, but > every little bit helps. > > I guess my problem is that I want - and I've always wanted - the > flexibility of Emacs coupled with the simplicity and efficiency of > Vim's command set and modes. I guess that's why I nitpick at things > such as this. > > nikolai > :command -bar Command ... :cabbrev command Command and then you'll wonder why you can't define a new user-command but it's your funeral. You can (via source); cabbrev don't affect sourced scritps. Yakov
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Nikolai Weibull wrote: On 10/1/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nikolai Weibull wrote: > One thing that really annoys me with Vim is the limits it emposes on > what names are legal for user-defined functions and commands. I know > the reason for these restrictions, but I don't think they make much > sense, especially so for user-defined commands. I realize that > overriding :quit does have its implications, but done carefully, this > does allow for some interesting effects. > > So, why not lift the restrictions on valid names for user-defined > functions and commands? > > That is, give me good reasons for why they should be maintained and > I'll drop this request. Predictability. As in what? That :quit always works as documented? Sure, that's great, but if that's the problem, the restriction should be limited to commands already defined. And what happens when more commands are added? Hell, then they'll break the user-defined commands with the same name. Big deal; that's life, you'll get over it - everyone does, eventually. I really don't see the big difference between user-defined commands clashing with built-in commands and user-defined commands clashing with each other. It'll happen; unless you start adding prefixes or namespaces or some other way of separating your commands. But then you lose out on simplicity. You don't want to type :NOWCommand (given that "NOW" is "my" prefix), and I don't want to type :Command; I want to type :command. Sure, it only saves my fingers from giving up on me for so long, but every little bit helps. I guess my problem is that I want - and I've always wanted - the flexibility of Emacs coupled with the simplicity and efficiency of Vim's command set and modes. I guess that's why I nitpick at things such as this. nikolai :command -bar Command ... :cabbrev command Command and then you'll wonder why you can't define a new user-command but it's your funeral. It's still not perfect though; the cabbrev will be expanded even if it's not at the start (but that may be not-so-bad if you use ":verbose command", ":vertical command", etc.) Best regards, Tony.
Re: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On 10/2/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Me too. I think it means that (1) "email address at KNBT that is unavailable or no longer valid", and (2) it's time for you to add special filtering rule to your mail reader. I mean, who said mail bot cannot post to mailing list ? It's not posting to the mailing list, it's sending it to me, and I haven't asked for a return receipt or anything. One would hope that mailing list software + MTAs would get together and understand that I, the poster to the mailing list, don't want to know that some douchebag registered an email address with the mailing list and didn't remove themself from the mailing list when it was dropped at the recipient end. Also, it would be nice if the MTA in question would only send /one/ notification (during a given time period), not once every time. So anyway, I guess my request is for Felix von Leitner, or whoever doesn't maintain this mailing list anymore (according to earlier discussions on similar subjects), to remove the offending email address from the mailing address. Thanks. nikolai P.S. Sorry about the extra traffic about this. D.S.
Re: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Me too. I think it means that (1) "email address at KNBT that is unavailable or no longer valid", and (2) it's time for you to add special filtering rule to your mail reader. I mean, who said mail bot cannot post to mailing list ? Yakov On 10/2/06, Nikolai Weibull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I keep getting this f**king message every time I post to vim-dev. Seriously, wtf? nikolai (awaiting another notification for this mail not getting through) -- Forwarded message -- From: System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2 Oct 2006 14:19:05 -0400 Subject: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions? To: Nikolai Weibull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You have reached an email address at KNBT that is unavailable or no longer valid. If you have any questions please call our customer service number at 1-800-996-2062 (toll-free), Monday – Friday: 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. and Saturday: 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Thank You, We are very sorry for any inconvenience. KNBT Banking, Insurance, Investments, Trust [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: Fax: http://www.knbt.com "This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Keystone Nazareth Bank & Trust. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Keystone Nazareth Bank & Trust accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail."
Fwd: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
I keep getting this f**king message every time I post to vim-dev. Seriously, wtf? nikolai (awaiting another notification for this mail not getting through) -- Forwarded message -- From: System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2 Oct 2006 14:19:05 -0400 Subject: Do Not Reply To This Message:Re: Time to remove naming restrictions? To: Nikolai Weibull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You have reached an email address at KNBT that is unavailable or no longer valid. If you have any questions please call our customer service number at 1-800-996-2062 (toll-free), Monday – Friday: 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. and Saturday: 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Thank You, We are very sorry for any inconvenience. KNBT Banking, Insurance, Investments, Trust [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: Fax: http://www.knbt.com "This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Keystone Nazareth Bank & Trust. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Keystone Nazareth Bank & Trust accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail."
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
On 10/1/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nikolai Weibull wrote: > One thing that really annoys me with Vim is the limits it emposes on > what names are legal for user-defined functions and commands. I know > the reason for these restrictions, but I don't think they make much > sense, especially so for user-defined commands. I realize that > overriding :quit does have its implications, but done carefully, this > does allow for some interesting effects. > > So, why not lift the restrictions on valid names for user-defined > functions and commands? > > That is, give me good reasons for why they should be maintained and > I'll drop this request. Predictability. As in what? That :quit always works as documented? Sure, that's great, but if that's the problem, the restriction should be limited to commands already defined. And what happens when more commands are added? Hell, then they'll break the user-defined commands with the same name. Big deal; that's life, you'll get over it - everyone does, eventually. I really don't see the big difference between user-defined commands clashing with built-in commands and user-defined commands clashing with each other. It'll happen; unless you start adding prefixes or namespaces or some other way of separating your commands. But then you lose out on simplicity. You don't want to type :NOWCommand (given that "NOW" is "my" prefix), and I don't want to type :Command; I want to type :command. Sure, it only saves my fingers from giving up on me for so long, but every little bit helps. I guess my problem is that I want - and I've always wanted - the flexibility of Emacs coupled with the simplicity and efficiency of Vim's command set and modes. I guess that's why I nitpick at things such as this. nikolai
Re: Time to remove naming restrictions?
Nikolai Weibull wrote: > One thing that really annoys me with Vim is the limits it emposes on > what names are legal for user-defined functions and commands. I know > the reason for these restrictions, but I don't think they make much > sense, especially so for user-defined commands. I realize that > overriding :quit does have its implications, but done carefully, this > does allow for some interesting effects. > > So, why not lift the restrictions on valid names for user-defined > functions and commands? > > That is, give me good reasons for why they should be maintained and > I'll drop this request. Predictability. -- Are leaders born or made? And if they're made, can we return them under warranty? (Scott Adams - The Dilbert principle) /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org///
Time to remove naming restrictions?
Hi! One thing that really annoys me with Vim is the limits it emposes on what names are legal for user-defined functions and commands. I know the reason for these restrictions, but I don't think they make much sense, especially so for user-defined commands. I realize that overriding :quit does have its implications, but done carefully, this does allow for some interesting effects. So, why not lift the restrictions on valid names for user-defined functions and commands? That is, give me good reasons for why they should be maintained and I'll drop this request. Thanks. nikolai
