RE: Not Matt's Scripts
From: Dave Hodgkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:28 AM Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Current version is at http://www.dave.org.uk/scripts/notmatt/formmail.pl.txt but it needs some tightening up and peer review. Remind me, what was the mission here? To so somethign that flows like A Matt's script but is done right? Drop in replacements for Matt's scripts using best practices - but no external modules. And didn't we have the argument(s) about sendmail vs. Net::SMTP and inline HTML vs. template? Yep. But Net::SMTP is not a stadard module and therefore sendmail wins. Dave... -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 19:53 30/04/2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: I've got someone needing a form to mail script. Where's ours[0]? Ta, Dave [0] Oh, all right, yours since I bottled out. Current version is at http://www.dave.org.uk/scripts/notmatt/formmail.pl.txt but it needs some tightening up and peer review. Well hurry up, I'm in the middle of an argument and I want to slap some people with a this is how they _Should_ look cluestick... -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Cross David - dcross wrote: Yep. But Net::SMTP is not a stadard module and therefore sendmail wins. That wasn't the reason. The reason was the same as one of the reasons for rewriting matt's scripts in the first place - that the error handling sucks. You can't sensibly error handle with Net::SMTP. This is why there was discussion, however, on widnoze, (not sure about vanilla mac (rather than os x)) there is no sensible way to do a queued message. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it. -- Mae West
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
From: Matthew Byng-Maddick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 10:07 AM On Wed, 2 May 2001, Cross David - dcross wrote: Yep. But Net::SMTP is not a stadard module and therefore sendmail wins. That wasn't the reason. The reason was the same as one of the reasons for rewriting matt's scripts in the first place - that the error handling sucks. You can't sensibly error handle with Net::SMTP. This is why there was discussion, however, on widnoze, (not sure about vanilla mac (rather than os x)) there is no sensible way to do a queued message. Feel free to believe what you want, but as far as I'm concerned, not expecting people to install extra CPAN modules is of overriding importance in writing replacements for Matt's scripts. Dave... The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
- Original Message - From: Cross David - dcross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 4:12 AM Subject: RE: Not Matt's Scripts Feel free to believe what you want, but as far as I'm concerned, not expecting people to install extra CPAN modules is of overriding importance in writing replacements for Matt's scripts. Dave... Although we have Net::SMTP installed on our servers and there is a formail program there, there is no way any member of support is going to tell an average 'my first homepage' AOL customer that they need to use a script that requires anything extra installed. They have difficulty enough telling the difference between binary and ascii mode let alone being able to handle module installation. If the script is meant to be a replacement for matts script then using Net::SMTP negates this based on the target audience for matts scripts IMHO. Will.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
Just had a look, and apparently the Formmail scripts have been ported to Win32 and use something called Blat instead of sendmail. Is there any reason why we couldn't use Blat too? I'm looking into it to see if I can get it working. -- Robert - Original Message - From: Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 May 2001 10:06 Subject: RE: Not Matt's Scripts On Wed, 2 May 2001, Cross David - dcross wrote: Yep. But Net::SMTP is not a stadard module and therefore sendmail wins. That wasn't the reason. The reason was the same as one of the reasons for rewriting matt's scripts in the first place - that the error handling sucks. You can't sensibly error handle with Net::SMTP. This is why there was discussion, however, on widnoze, (not sure about vanilla mac (rather than os x)) there is no sensible way to do a queued message. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it. -- Mae West
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
From: Robin Szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 May 2001 11:02
Subject: Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 02 May 2001, you wrote:
Just had a look, and apparently the Formmail scripts have been ported to
Win32 and use something called Blat instead of sendmail. Is there any
reason
why we couldn't use Blat too? I'm looking into it to see if I can get it
working.
ahh yes ...
trouble is .. there must be half a dozen 'popular' mailers for win32
...blat is just one of many (or so I'm told) the only thing I remember is
blat is a file based thing, you have to put your mail in a file on the
disc and then tell blat to send it, at least thats the way formmial was
using it.
I did look at the said script many moons ago
instead of
if($win32){ send_win32($mail) }
else { send_unix($mail) }
it has
sub send{
do this ...
err .. but not this bit if its unix.
oh and this bit
but add this bit for win32
and take this bit off agin
and this bit goes in for unix
and then do this if its win32
Yes - it's a bit crap. And I'm having trouble with it (read: can't get it
working).
I think we should be able to put all the Win32 specific bits in one place,
and have separate places for each external mailer program such as blat; but
blat is as good a place to start as any I suppose.
/Robert
PS - has anyone done this one already on Win32, or shall I keep going.
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 02 May 2001, you wrote: Just had a look, and apparently the Formmail scripts have been ported to Win32 and use something called Blat instead of sendmail. Is there any reason why we couldn't use Blat too? I'm looking into it to see if I can get it working. ahh yes ... trouble is .. there must be half a dozen 'popular' mailers for win32 ...blat is just one of many (or so I'm told) the only thing I remember is blat is a file based thing, you have to put your mail in a file on the disc and then tell blat to send it, at least thats the way formmial was using it. Blat can be used the command-line way, by specifying '-' as the input file (hey - a unix convention!) The following snippet works like a dream. $mail_program='c:\winnt\system32\blat.exe'; $from_field='My Lovely Site [EMAIL PROTECTED]'; open (MAIL, |$mail_program - -t \$recipient\ -i \$from_field\ -s \$subject\); Then just print to MAIL, and close the filehandle when you're done. Of course, this comes back to the fact that the user will need to have control of/know where the NT mailer exists, but I believe most NT hosting services do install blat, and tell people where it is.
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
more on blat/win32 mailers Arse, apologies for the two messages - I remembered the following and pressed send simultaneously... IMHO (and I've looked into this in some depth for various projects over the past 2 years), there aren't that many command-line mailers for win32. The only other anywhere-near-prolific one is W3JMail, which is an absolute arse to configure, and is only used in most outfits because it plugs very well into ASP pages. All the cheap hosting companies I've ever seen who do NT and offer mail-out facilities do blat. Any other command-line mailers which exist are generally unstable, unconfigurable or downright obscure. My advice would be to configure Win32 systems to use blat out of the box, and (possibly) invite input from people who use anything different. That's the OSS way, after all!
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:22:39PM +0100, Simon Batistoni wrote: Of course, this comes back to the fact that the user will need to have control of/know where the NT mailer exists, but I believe most NT hosting services do install blat, and tell people where it is. If the purpose of this is to make it utterly drool-proof, then why not re-write File::Find (can't make them install it of course, that would be expecting too much) so that it finds their mailer for them. We'd have to re-write Digest::MD5 too, so that we could compare the found file with a signature just in case someone has been messing with filenames. Wouldn't want to accidentally start Back Orifice instead of blat. Yeah, silly isn't it. That's what happens when you aim for the lowest common denominator. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our latest and greatest operating system which we couldn't be arsed to complete
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
so .. who is the FormMail csar? ... I lost track of who was dealing with what. I spotted a few things in there and have comments .. or should i just post em on the list .. ??? -- Robin Szemeti The box said requires windows 95 or better So I installed Linux!
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
At 13:27 02/05/2001 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: If the purpose of this is to make it utterly drool-proof, then why not re-write File::Find (can't make them install it of course, that would be expecting too much) Is there a reason why we can't distribute our own versions of modules with the scripts ? MWF Forum (as an example) has modules in the same directory as the scripts which seem to just get useed in the usual way. Could we not ship our own version of File::Find, and have the code use it if it can't use the real File::Find because it's not installed ? OK, so it would eat up disk space but if it were clever, there would be some run once code that would figure out what's there and what isn't and tell the user which files they could safely remove. Ideally it would rewrite itself and do the deletes automatically but I suspect that clueful ISPs will have removed write permissions for the webserver to write to cgi-bin ! Just a thought. Simon.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
Yes - it's a bit crap. And I'm having trouble with it (read: can't get it working). I think we should be able to put all the Win32 specific bits in one place, and have separate places for each external mailer program such as blat; but blat is as good a place to start as any I suppose. Well, finally got the formmail.pl script to work on win32 with blat. Tracked my major difficulty down to a problem created by the person who ported it to windows, $CONFIG has been used instead of the correct case which is $Config. Can't imagine it's ever worked. I'll have a look at Dave's later. /Robert, needing to pretend to do some real work now!
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:57 PM so .. who is the FormMail csar? ... I lost track of who was dealing with what. Er... me. I think. I spotted a few things in there and have comments .. or should i just post em on the list .. ??? Just post 'em to the list. Let's hold up as much as possible of my code to the derision of the world! Dave... -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:45:19AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote: Hey! You think this 5K script is enough? Wrong, you've gotta configure CPAN, get these suite of modules that is a prerequisite for these suites of modules which include something like Data::Dumper which makes you pull down the latest f**king perl distribution which doesn't f**cking compile on your machine! step 1: configure CPAN step 2: upgrade CPAN step 3: configure the new CPAN step 4: use CPAN yes it sucks mildly, it's still a helluva lot more convinient than doing it by hand, imo -- Richard Clamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On 30 Apr 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: I've got someone needing a form to mail script. Where's ours[0]? According to my records, Dave C was doing it. Dave? Later. Mark. -- mark typed this
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 30 Apr 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: I've got someone needing a form to mail script. Where's ours[0]? According to my records, Dave C was doing it. FWIW I had a look at Soupermail. A better effort but could still do with work. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
At 19:53 30/04/2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: I've got someone needing a form to mail script. Where's ours[0]? Ta, Dave [0] Oh, all right, yours since I bottled out. Current version is at http://www.dave.org.uk/scripts/notmatt/formmail.pl.txt but it needs some tightening up and peer review. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Not Matt's Scripts
I've got someone needing a form to mail script. Where's ours[0]? Ta, Dave [0] Oh, all right, yours since I bottled out. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
Dave Cross wrote: At Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:21:52 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhow what are we going to do about the 'C++' ones :) Ignore them. Pretend they aren't there :) You misspelled "Rewrite them in Perl". HTH. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
Mark Fowler wrote: 1) Is POSIX.pm a standard module I believe it is, but the functionality might not be the same everywhere -- I think it just gives you as much as the platform itself provides. However, strftime so basic I'd guess any vaguely ANSI-/POSIX-compliant C library should have it. (and how do I work this out for myself) Er, download the Perl source and see if it's in there? and supported on all O.S.es so I don't have to rewrite strftime. If you have a POSIX compliant compiler/C library, it should be there. I'd say most are, nowadays. (Certainly now that Perl *requires* an ANSI C compiler to build.) 2) How do I get strftime to produce th/st/nd for the date? I can't see it on man strftime, but I might just be going blind. I don't think you can. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Mark Fowler wrote: 1) Is POSIX.pm a standard module (and how do I work this out for myself) and supported on all O.S.es so I don't have to rewrite strftime. Its definitely in the 5.00404 on one of the machines here so I would that it could be said to be standard. Anyhow I'm using it somewhere so it should be :) /J\
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
From: "Robin Houston" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 March 2001 14:59
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:08:11PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote:
2) How do I get strftime to produce th/st/nd for the date? I can't see
it
on man strftime, but I might just be going blind.
use POSIX 'strftime';
my @th=(qw(th st nd rd),("th")x16)x2; $th[31]="st";
my @time=localtime;
print strftime("%e$th[$time[3]] %b %Y\n", @time);
%e seems to be Linux specific. %d works on both Linux and Windows.
/Robert, possibly making his first perl contribution to the list!
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:14:22PM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote: %e seems to be Linux specific. %d works on both Linux and Windows. Not Linux-specific, it's part of the Single Unix Specification. Point taken about Win32. .robin. -- select replace(a, CHR(88), replace(a,,'')) from ( select 'select replace(a, CHR(88), replace(a,,)) from ( select ''X'' a from dual)' a from dual)
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:29:57PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
my @th=(qw(th st nd rd),("th")x16)x2; $th[31]="st";
That's an evil and gross hack.
sub th{(($_[0]-10-$_[0]%10)/10%10)?(qw(th st nd rd),('th')x6)[$_[0]%10]:"th"}
TIMTOWTDI, thank ghod ;-)
.robin.
--
"It really depends on the architraves." --Harl
Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
At 13:29 27/03/2001 +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
my @th=(qw(th st nd rd),("th")x16)x2; $th[31]="st";
That's an evil and gross hack.
[snip]
sub th{(($_[0]-10-$_[0]%10)/10%10)?(qw(th st nd rd),('th')x6)[$_[0]%10]:"th"}
The first one I understood. Not sure about the second but I'll work it out ;-)
I thought I would play around with Benchmark.pm, because I don't use it
nearly often enough, so I made this script:
#! /usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Benchmark;
use POSIX 'strftime';
use vars qw(@th);
@th=(qw(th st nd rd),("th")x16)x2; $th[31]="st";
sub th{(($_[0]-10-$_[0]%10)/10%10)?(qw(th st nd rd),('th')x6)[$_[0]%10]:"th"}
my $count=10;
timethese($count, {
'Array' = '{
my @time=localtime;
my $dummy = strftime("%e$th[$time[3]] %b %Y\n",
@time);
}',
'Sub' = '{
my @time=localtime;
my $th=th($time[3]);
my $dummy = strftime("%e$th %b %Y\n", @time);
}'
});
Now - I don't know if I've used this right at all - comments and criticisms
gladly accepted.
The output is:
Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of Array, Sub...
Array: 3 wallclock secs ( 3.33 usr + 0.09 sys = 3.42 CPU)
Sub: 6 wallclock secs ( 5.27 usr + 0.06 sys = 5.33 CPU)
So - Did I get this heinously wrong or is MBM's sub really a lot slower ?
Simon.
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
Simon Wilcox wrote: So - Did I get this heinously wrong or is MBM's sub really a lot slower ? Well, remember that the sub effecticaly recalculates (what amounts to) the array each time. To be fair, you should include the array initialisation inside the loop and see who wins then. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 04:19:08PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote:
I thought I would play around with Benchmark.pm, because I don't use it
nearly often enough, so I made this script:
@th=(qw(th st nd rd),("th")x16)x2; $th[31]="st";
sub th{(($_[0]-10-$_[0]%10)/10%10)?(qw(th st nd rd),('th')x6)[$_[0]%10]:"th"}
Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of Array, Sub...
Array: 3 wallclock secs ( 3.33 usr + 0.09 sys = 3.42 CPU)
Sub: 6 wallclock secs ( 5.27 usr + 0.06 sys = 5.33 CPU)
So - Did I get this heinously wrong or is MBM's sub really a lot slower ?
No, you got it right. You would expect the sub version to be slower, as it
has to make a subroutine call and do some calculations every time, whereas
the array version pre-calculates everything and then just does a tonne of
comparitively inexpensive array lookups.
--
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/
This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important **
PGP signature
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:40:19PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: Well, remember that the sub effecticaly recalculates (what amounts to) the array each time. To be fair, you should include the array initialisation inside the loop and see who wins then. Hey, that's not _fair_! The whole point of using an array is that you can pre-populate it. (also it's more concise, and I find it more comprehensible. YMMV) .robin. -- Beware. The paranoids are watching you.
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
At 16:53 27/03/2001 +0100, Robin Houston wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:40:19PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: Well, remember that the sub effecticaly recalculates (what amounts to) the array each time. To be fair, you should include the array initialisation inside the loop and see who wins then. Hey, that's not _fair_! The whole point of using an array is that you can pre-populate it. (also it's more concise, and I find it more comprehensible. YMMV) I agree, it's how I would have done it. I was just trying to see it really deserved the label "evil and gross hack". It seems to me that it doesn't but as you say, YMMV and I got to practice my benchmarking :-) Simon.
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: At 16:53 27/03/2001 +0100, Robin Houston wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:40:19PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: Well, remember that the sub effecticaly recalculates (what amounts to) the array each time. To be fair, you should include the array initialisation inside the loop and see who wins then. Hey, that's not _fair_! The whole point of using an array is that you can pre-populate it. (also it's more concise, and I find it more comprehensible. YMMV) I agree, it's how I would have done it. I was just trying to see it really deserved the label "evil and gross hack". Because it was only meant to deal with things up to 31, if you try and (for some reason) try to put 32 in, you would get 32th (because it has populated the array). I don't like that kind of thing. It's a personal choice. I think the bit I objected to most was the $th[31]="st" bit. I shouldn't have put it like that, but as Robin says, TIMTOWTDI,so yeah. It seems to me that it doesn't but as you say, YMMV and I got to practice my benchmarking :-) :) I did expect it to be slower, it also copes with any number. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) Knebel's Law: It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: At Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:21:52 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: I've had a bit of a go at some of these today and they're up at http://www.dave.org.uk/scripts/notmatt/ if anyone's interested. You might want to change the content-type on that directory as I get a funny error :) Hmm... What error are you getting? Works ok for me. htmlbody bgcolor=#ff h2Script execution error/h2 pUnable to execute script due to a configuration problem. brPlease notify the webmaster of this error. pexec() returned: b13: Permission denied/b /body/html Anyhow what are we going to do about the 'C++' ones :) Ignore them. Pretend they aren't there :) Oh go one, wipes paw on table sooty style /J\
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
At 22:46 26/03/2001, you wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: At Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:21:52 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: I've had a bit of a go at some of these today and they're up at http://www.dave.org.uk/scripts/notmatt/ if anyone's interested. You might want to change the content-type on that directory as I get a funny error :) Hmm... What error are you getting? Works ok for me. Script execution error Unable to execute script due to a configuration problem. Please notify the webmaster of this error. exec() returned: 13: Permission denied OK. When I said "works", I hadn't actually tried to _view_ on of the scripts. I've renamed them to .pl.txt and it seems to work now. PowerHost seem to have that server configured in a really weird way - I'll get on to them later. Thanks for pointing it out. Now, do you know why [EMAIL PROTECTED] has suddenly be subscribed to this list? I keep getting everything twice? Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: I've had a bit of a go at some of these today and they're up at http://www.dave.org.uk/scripts/notmatt/ if anyone's interested. You might want to change the content-type on that directory as I get a funny error :) As far as I can see, the people volunteering to provide replacements were as follows: Guestbook JNS Real Soon Now ... Just caught in the 'New Laptop Transition' WWWboardJNS Nearly there. I just get fucked off every time I look at the original. Counter FormmailDave C Random Image Displayer Dave C Random Link Generator Dave C Textclock Mark F Countdown Mark F Free For All Links JNS Now available as http://www.perl.gellyfish.com/source/mwffa.pl.txt Simple Search JNS Now available as http://www.perl.gellyfish.com/source/ssearch.pl.txt Textcounter Dave C HTTP Cookie Library SSI Random Image Generator Dave C Random Text Dave C Animation So it looks like we've got most of then sewn up. Anyone else want to report on progress or grab one of the outstanding ones to do? Anyhow what are we going to do about the 'C++' ones :) /J\
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Cheers, philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Probably after kermit and "hello world". :-) -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: [unzip] Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Probably after kermit and "hello world". :-) You read the web page, didn't you. Nope, just guessing, based upon years of spending too much time staring at source code. *sigh*. Must remember to get a life one of these days... -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Seems like we've made a reasonable start on this project. We already have a few scripts written - anyone want to report progress on any of the others? I have Guestbook, FFA and simple search all ready to for testing elsewhere - I'll package and upload them somewhere this evening. I looked at wwwboard as well and discovered that I had got as far as making it strict and use CGI.pm so whover is working on that can have my work in progress if they want :) What we need now is to start to impose some structure on the project. Here are a few ideas: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) * Testing both our versions and the originals on as many platforms as possible. Ensuring that our scripts do the same thing as Matt's. * Licensing. Matt has a huge great license on all of his scripts. We should replace it with the standard "under the same tersm as Perl itself" statement. * Copyright. All the scripts (and the HTML pages) have Matt's copyright. We should change that to ours. * HTML. Most of the scripts have associated HTML pages. I've not looked at them yet, but judging by the HTML I've seen in the scripts I've looked at, Matt's HTML isn't much better than his Perl. I'd recommend changing all the HTML to XHTML. I have run tidy over all of it and converted it to HTML 4 Transitional but XHTML would be just as easy. I can download the rest of the scripts and then fix the associated HTML too. * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. This should probably done on the CVS server. * Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be a subdirectory on london.pm.org. Unfortunately because I am without laptop at the moment things are a bit difficult - I have had to press my very old machine into service. Oh BTW are we allowing POSIX in ? I had used that in the Guestbook for strftime ... /J\ -- I'm obviously challenged at the moment give me a break.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Snip * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. This should probably done on the CVS server. Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by default so that may not be neccesary. On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Thanks Gareth Harper
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On the subject of having zip archives as well as tarballs on the server,
Gareth Harper said:
Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by
default so that may not be neccesary.
Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social
point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going
on! What are all these weird charges from AOL? etc)
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by default so that may not be neccesary. If all the files are created in unix, they may well not have \n\r at the end of the lines, which make them a bugger to edit in notepad (wordpad and even edit handle them OK though.) So I think the archive should have windows versions of the text files that work in notepad. CVS (I use GNU winCVS in windows) handles all these conversions for you, but if someone wants to download a zip (whatever format) or a certain script (or doesn't care about CVS) then the zip will need to contain the \n\r.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. I don't have liability insurance, but don't look at me as a good example: I paid my tax a year late, and keep forgetting to send in my VAT returns! -- Marty
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. If the money was paid to you as a salary you'd be lucky to see 50% of it. It also reduces the NIC burden on the employer... by removing the 12.2% employers contribution, so they can afford to pay you even more :)) So Limited Company everytime if you can .. works best for both sides. The costs of setup are small, the costs (in terms of time to admin it) is small (1 hour a week max, plus a couple of days at some poin tduring hte year to get it all together and hassle the accountant) but the benfits, financially are significant. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) Thanks Gareth Harper
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 15:40 20/03/2001 +, Gareth Harper wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) IANAL but I think that clients become liable for paying certain dues, NI IIRC, if you, as a sole trader or casual worker, are based on a client site, directed by the client, for a long period of time (for some value, unknown to me, of "long"). By retaining a limited company, the client is absolved of this obligation. There could be other reasons or this reason could be completely false. It's been several years since I looked at this. Simon.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Marty Pauley writes: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. I don't have liability insurance, but don't look at me as a good example: I paid my tax a year late, and keep forgetting to send in my VAT returns! That pretty much describes me too. Regarding insurance, the PCG (http://www.pcgroup.org.uk) have arranged deals on professional indemnity and medical insurance which may be worth a butchers. -- Brian Raven My arthritic pinkies are already starting to ache just thinking about =. -- Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Excewpt that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just have a little WinZip icon[0], which means they should be happy. Oh no, wait a minute, I think it uncompresses the .gz bit then prompts for what to do with the .tar bit, which might scare them off. Just shut up, matt. -- matt "'scuse me trooper, will you be needing any packets today? hey, baby, don't be pulling on my socket, okay?" [0] Or whatever handles .tar.gz on their machine.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) nope nothing like. as sole trader all monies received (- expenses) are treated as income .. thus you pay NIC on the whole lot .. tax at 23% or whatever up to 30K and then tax at 40% above 30k(ish). as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year Rubbish ;) its NIC free, not tax free. .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) No, thats what the self-assessment form is for at the end of the year.
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 04:07 PM 20.3.2001 +, you wrote: Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Except that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just have a little WinZip icon[0], which means they should be happy. ...except that the Windows extension hiding feature only applies to files seen through the normal filesystem tools (Windows Explorer, various dialog boxes, etc), and not Internetty stuff. People might still be scared off by seeing a web or ftp site that doesn't have any .zip files... Oh no, wait a minute, I think it uncompresses the .gz bit then prompts for what to do with the .tar bit, which might scare them off. That too -- that's a pain in the arse: it ends up adding a seemingly superfluous step to the process that could be off-putting to Win-natives. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year Rubbish ;) its NIC free, not tax free. true, technically its not tax free .. as the company has paid 20% on it which is only 2% less (or is it 3%) less than basic rate. the big saving is if you are able to split it across 2 shareholders eg you and your wife, thus avoiding the 40% thing. for reasons less than clear to me this money is treated as being +10% gross (ie for every 1000 pounds you get it counts as 1100 pounds of tax-paid income .. but hey, thats what I pay the accountant for, to understand this sort of nonsense. .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) No, thats what the self-assessment form is for at the end of the year. so long as you have paid your NIC and PAYE throughout the year and kept a careful eye on how much the divvies come to then there should be little else to pay ... 80~85% in your pocket is quite achievable... this is of course when you suddenly reallise that youve been giving out divvies far too frequently and you had an effective income of 60K each .. and that you;ve already spent it all and owe the taxman $LOTS. ;) the other big advantage of a limited company is that it allows you to decide when to release the money .. as a sole trader if you earn shed loads one year it all counts as income for that year .. with a limited company you might decide that the dividend would not be paid until say .. the end of April, thus it would count towards your income for next year and avoid the 40% thing .. which if you take a lot of holidays or find it difficult to get a contract could be advantageous to be able to do that sort of thing from time to time. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:43:08AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote: ...except that the Windows extension hiding feature only applies to files seen through the normal filesystem tools (Windows Explorer, various dialog boxes, etc), and not Internetty stuff. People might still be scared off by seeing a web or ftp site that doesn't have any .zip files... Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. /rant -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. I don't know - maybe in your inexperience you have a windowsy perl book (there are some out there) or a poor cgi book to work from that never mentions tgz or .tar.gz - its an additional obstacle - they'd only go an use MSA. A. -- A HREF = "http://termisoc.org/~betty" Betty @ termisoc.org /A "As a youngster Fred fought sea battles on the village pond using a complex system of signals he devised that was later adopted by the Royal Navy. " (this email has nothing to do with any organisation except me)
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. Seems to me you don't really understand windows very well :-) ws-ftp/ ftp explorer - drag and drop files onto your server chmod - who needs that, the directory is executable already, all files are too. tweak config files - notepad will allow the user to either add or remove a # from the appropriate lines in the file - these will be marked. .tar.gz - wtf is that, why isn't there a zip file. People keep misunderstanding this point: just because someone is using windows/mac doesn't make them a moron. They may well be, but I know quite a few unix morons too. It is a different skillset. If a Mac user is trying to set up some perl scripts on a windows machine, he may well have had no exposure to .tar.gz files (hqx, sit, zip, pak, arc maybe). Files should be available in the format that is most commonly used for the OS. /rant /Robert BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects .tar.gz - wtf is that, why isn't there a zip file. People keep misunderstanding this point: just because someone is using windows/mac doesn't make them a moron. They may well be, but I know quite a few unix morons too. It is a different skillset. True and also winzip makes the tar.gz file have a nice little zip icon, just like a .zip file, so they won't actually know the difference. Gareth
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) NAMEunzip - list, test and extract compressed files in a ZI archive DESCRIPTIONunzip will list, test, or extract files from a ZIP archive, commonly found on MS-DOS systems.The default behavior (with no options) is to extract into the current directory (and subdirectories below it) all files from the specified ZIP archive. A companion program, zip(1), creates ZIP archives; both programs are compatible with archives created by PKWARE's PKZIP and PKUNZIP for MS-DOS, but in many cases the program options or default behaviors differ. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. So then they go and download the buggy, insecure, crap script from MSA and when they fail they decide that Perl is crap /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gellyfish.com
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
* Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two
versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be
a subdirectory on london.pm.org.
I don't mind doing this bit of it. I would quite like the idea of
creating a few web pages for someone other than myself or for work for a
bit, unless anyone's got any objections...
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC
has concluded that:
a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title.
b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies.
c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1].
But apart from that we've been useless
Later.
Mark.
[1] Okay, so I added this one myself, but I think it's a good idea.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 12:40 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC has concluded that: a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title. So "Not the Matt Wright Archive" is out then ;-) b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1]. Can we make use of the PerlMonger connection and/or use the Programming Republic logo ? Simon.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:27:57 + (GMT), jo walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) i can sort this, perhaps with veeghelp. for leon and marcel's aspect oriented programming project we started a /home/projects directory, we could put the not-matt stuff in there and CVS all of it, and make a dev group as well as the www group we are using now would we want public access to part or all of the cvs repository? Sounds like a good plan to me. No strong opinions here about public access to CVS. Anyone else? Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1]. Can we make use of the PerlMonger connection and/or use the Programming Republic logo ? Yes, IMHO, though IANAL. http://www.pm.org/faq.shtml http://republic.perl.com/logo.html The perl mongers logo is a little on the big size (and we're not allowed to resize it.) Maybe a page that says "Who did this ?" "Why did we do it ?" and fit the logo in there ? Perhaps we should try and get the project endorsed in some way so that we can say "The Perl Mongers bring you Easy Perl Scripts" ? But now I'm descending into Marketing so I'll shut up ! S.
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? My own two-penn'orth would be that it's better without the 'perl'. It's easier to say, easier to type, and to be honest, the target audience for Matt's archive don't give a monkeys what language the script is written in. They're told they want "a guestbook script", they go get "a guestbook script." Perl can be emphasised in the text of the page, and brought to the fore when you come to optimise the page to be found in search engines, etc etc. It's also more generic, which means you can legitimately 'funnel in' websurfers who are looking for PHP scripts, and then brainwash^Weducate them as to why they don't want that shit, they want *this* shit. -- Simon Batistoni userfrenzy [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7209 4117
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
From: "Simon Wilcox" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 March 2001 13:34 Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? EZPS, pronounced Easy Peas :-) /Robert
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ...
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 14:59 19/03/2001 +, Simon Wistow wrote: Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ... ... it would all be in XML ;-)
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. Simple Search Oh I have done that one as well :) /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.btinternet.com/~gellyfish/ http://www.gellyfish.com
Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..
At 16:44 16/03/2001, you wrote: Leo Lapworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! Ah. This is probably a good time to back out. One of the other Daves beat me to it, and far better than I would have done it and I've got my VAT to do before I go to Tokyo. I'll buy whoever _does_ do mine a beer or two at the next pm meeting we're both at. I did the random _text_ one. Anyone else want to take on the rest of Dave H's stuff as I took one over from Alex earlier this week. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..
Hi Guys, I've created a random image generator (not Matt complient) that I needed for a friend. Please feel fee to put it in the collection. This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! http://totoro.cuckoo.org/rand_image.txt Thanks to the folks on IRC for some tidying ideas. Cheers Leo
Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..
Leo Lapworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! Ah. This is probably a good time to back out. One of the other Daves beat me to it, and far better than I would have done it and I've got my VAT to do before I go to Tokyo. I'll buy whoever _does_ do mine a beer or two at the next pm meeting we're both at. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Matt's Scripts
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is indeed lovely. Although you don't need to do tunnelling magic: rsync -options -e ssh source-list me@myserver:/destination rsync is a wonderful beast. The -a and -z options, accompanied by --progress (if they're big files) and --delete (for true mirroring). -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
RE: Matt's Scripts
Finding out where perl is
parody
Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello
world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you
actually working on these scripts yet!
/parody
You're all getting ahead of yourselves. We need to write a set of
helloWorld scripts that the script user can upload first to find out the
basic facts about their server and check everything is working.
a) You have multiple copys of the script with different shebang lines on
the top. Only one of these will work and one of the things it'll do is
print our is "The first line of programs you upload to this server should
be #!/blah/perl"
b) It checks your perl version is reasonable. Actually it probably should
do this before a) in case there are several versions installed.
c) It tests if you've got a borken version of CGI.pm (or CGI.pm at all) by
looking at version numbers, etc. Same for other modules.
d) It links to an image in the same directory as itself and explains that
if the image isn't viewable then you do not have inplace cgi and the
things you have to know about this
e) It prints out the time, and GMT time thus highlighting to the user any
problems they might have if this is wrong
f) It prints out a hunk of diagnostic information (e.g. perl version,
module versions, url, etc, etc)
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
RE: Matt's Scripts
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:19:42 + (GMT), Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody You're all getting ahead of yourselves. We need to write a set of helloWorld scripts that the script user can upload first to find out the basic facts about their server and check everything is working. a) You have multiple copys of the script with different shebang lines on the top. Only one of these will work and one of the things it'll do is print our is "The first line of programs you upload to this server should be #!/blah/perl" b) It checks your perl version is reasonable. Actually it probably should do this before a) in case there are several versions installed. c) It tests if you've got a borken version of CGI.pm (or CGI.pm at all) by looking at version numbers, etc. Same for other modules. d) It links to an image in the same directory as itself and explains that if the image isn't viewable then you do not have inplace cgi and the things you have to know about this e) It prints out the time, and GMT time thus highlighting to the user any problems they might have if this is wrong f) It prints out a hunk of diagnostic information (e.g. perl version, module versions, url, etc, etc) My ms-env script does a lot of this. http://www.mag-sol.com/Scripts/ms-env-2.0.tar.gz Mind you, it _does_ rely on CGI.pm being available. Dave...
RE: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mark Fowler wrote: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody *giggle* L. delete smutty comment
Re: Matt's Scripts
Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody You're all getting ahead of yourselves. We need to write a set of helloWorld scripts that the script user can upload first to find out the basic facts about their server and check everything is working. a) You have multiple copys of the script with different shebang lines on the top. Only one of these will work and one of the things it'll do is print our is "The first line of programs you upload to this server should be #!/blah/perl" b) It checks your perl version is reasonable. Actually it probably should do this before a) in case there are several versions installed. c) It tests if you've got a borken version of CGI.pm (or CGI.pm at all) by looking at version numbers, etc. Same for other modules. d) It links to an image in the same directory as itself and explains that if the image isn't viewable then you do not have inplace cgi and the things you have to know about this e) It prints out the time, and GMT time thus highlighting to the user any problems they might have if this is wrong f) It prints out a hunk of diagnostic information (e.g. perl version, module versions, url, etc, etc) Ooh, 'configure.cgi'. If only we could assume that they had a working perl on the box that they were installing from then we could write a cunning installer script which uploaded configure.cgi to the ISP and interrogated it via a LWP::... client to get a bunch of configuration stuff, which could then be used to generate a list of scripts that could run on the user's ISP, and which could then go on and upload the scripts. Ooh... You don't even have to assume working perl on their box. You stick the interrogation stuff on the 'Not Matt's scripts' website. The punter then says "I want to run these scripts on such an ISP". NMS then checks to see if it has information about that ISP cached, and provides the appropriate scripts if so, or a copy of configure.cgi for the punter to upload. Once the punter has done the upload, he sets off an interrogation phase, which works out the capabilities of the particular user's environment and builds an appropriate script set. Hmm... it's just a simple matter of programming... -- Piers
Re: Matt's Scripts
At 10:54 14/03/01 +, you wrote: Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Finding out where perl is Ooh, 'configure.cgi'. If only we could assume that they had a working perl on the box that they were installing from then we could write a cunning installer script which uploaded configure.cgi to the ISP and interrogated it via a LWP::... client to get a bunch of configuration stuff, which could then be used to generate a list of scripts that could run on the user's ISP, and which could then go on and upload the scripts. Could we not produce something like configure.bat which is a hybrid shell script/batch file that starts the configuration process by finding perl and then launches perl to find out installed libraries. Obviously it would produce lots of 'Command not found' messages etc but it could quickly find perl (or not) and then move into a cleaner environment. Matt Ooh... You don't even have to assume working perl on their box. You stick the interrogation stuff on the 'Not Matt's scripts' website. The punter then says "I want to run these scripts on such an ISP". NMS then checks to see if it has information about that ISP cached, and provides the appropriate scripts if so, or a copy of configure.cgi for the punter to upload. Once the punter has done the upload, he sets off an interrogation phase, which works out the capabilities of the particular user's environment and builds an appropriate script set. Hmm... it's just a simple matter of programming... -- Piers
Re: Matt's Scripts
(What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?)
Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts
anywhere.
Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have
a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will be 'executed'.
Typically you cannot read from these dirs with a web server (you can only
execute the program and read their output.) This is so that if you have
passwords in your scripts it's very hard for the bad guys to read these
files and get the script via the webserver no matter what mistakes you
make (e.g. if you accidentlally leave backup files around.) The main
drawback of this is that you can't serve normal files (like images) from
the same directory.
I call the first 'in place cgi' and the latter 'cgi-bin'
Hope that's clear.
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:28:19 + (GMT), Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?) Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts anywhere. We _like_ servers configured like this. Especially if they've got some kind of file upload facility installed. We can run any code we like on them :) Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will be 'executed'. Typically you cannot read from these dirs with a web server (you can only execute the program and read their output.) This is so that if you have passwords in your scripts it's very hard for the bad guys to read these files and get the script via the webserver no matter what mistakes you make (e.g. if you accidentlally leave backup files around.) The main drawback of this is that you can't serve normal files (like images) from the same directory. These servers, OTOH, are far less fun. Typically the web user has no wrtie access to the cgi-bin directory so you can't upload your own scripts there using HTTP. I call the first 'in place cgi' and the latter 'cgi-bin' I call the first 'a security nightmare' and the latter 'much safer'. Hope that's clear. Very much :) Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: (What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?) Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts anywhere. Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will be 'executed'. Typically you cannot read from these dirs with a web server (you can only execute the program and read their output.) This is so that if you have passwords in your scripts it's very hard for the bad guys to read these files and get the script via the webserver no matter what mistakes you make (e.g. if you accidentlally leave backup files around.) The main drawback of this is that you can't serve normal files (like images) from the same directory. or if for some reason the ISP edits the httpd.conf and removes execution from .pl file types // voila! .. your scripts are exposed to the world .. its not such a big deal on paranoid ISP sites as they are usually only luser scripts doing somethig tedious .. the consequences on a commercial site could be very real indeed ... I always have my cgi-bin directory outside my document root .. makes sense to me. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:50:04AM +, Jon Eyre wrote: In my experience, virtually *all* isps/hosting providers use the 'separate cgi-bin directory' configuration. either for the security reasons outlined by evil dave ... Eh-hem. Evil Dave's server does *not* use seperate cgi-bin directories - but then, there's no ftp file upload, and the ftp root is in a different place from the web root anyway, and HTTP file upload is also not permitted. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:46:45PM +, Jon Eyre wrote: oops... Heh. Just remember, Evil Dave is the paranoid nutcase, Dave Cross is the one with the gold-plated cat. At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:05:05 +, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evil Dave's server does *not* use seperate cgi-bin directories - but then, there's no ftp file upload, and the ftp root is in a different place from the web root anyway, and HTTP file upload is also not permitted. Evil Dave's server is therefore a different beast to a hosting company's server, which isn't really much use if their customers can't get anything on to it. My several users use scp. All of them can put anything they want on there. If you're doing hosting and letting people upload code, you have no choice but to trust your users. *BUT* by avoiding grotesqities like ftp, and by setting permissions sanely, third-parties are hard-pressed to compromise the server. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain in the arse will fail to work because the users will bypass them (summarizing from Schneier's Secrets and Lies). All of them can put anything they want on there. If you're doing hosting and letting people upload code, you have no choice but to trust your users. *BUT* by avoiding grotesqities like ftp, and by setting permissions sanely, third-parties are hard-pressed to compromise the server. dealing with clients who can't remember or don't know usernames/passwords, and the subsequent calls to isp helpdesks: "Hello, I am from web agency X, we need ftp details for customer Y so we can upload their site." And they just give 'em out. No checks, no confirming with the customers, nothing. There's little hope of securing stuff if people can be socially engineered so easily.
Re: Matt's Scripts
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :) On Windows I use pscp which comes from the same people as putty. It works well, but it doesn't have a pretty graphical front-end. Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts
On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain in the arse will fail to work because the users will bypass them (summarizing from Schneier's Secrets and Lies). Then you disable ftp and smb. (And telnet, of course.) "Sorry, we can't use these because of the ban on plain-text passwords." Roger
Re: Matt's Scripts
is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows?
On Windows I use pscp which comes from the same people as putty. It
works well, but it doesn't have a pretty graphical front-end.
Yes there is. http://www.i-tree.org/ixplorer.htm.
I suggest you peeps read http://www.openssh.org/windows.html which lists
alternatives
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :) Rule one of security: Ensure availability for authorised users this breaks it ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:55:28PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain in the arse will fail to work because the users will bypass them (summarizing from Schneier's Secrets and Lies). I've been thinking that, while not ideal, webDAV is probably the best option here. I'm told it's a) secure-ish, and b) integrates nicely with Dreamweaver and whatever microsoft's thing is. WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My several users use scp.
is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows
clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue
using ftp, because it's *easier*...
They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :)
Rule one of security:
Ensure availability for authorised users
this breaks it ;-)
Do what we do. Keep everything running, but shove a whopping great
ipchains (or firewall of choice) in the way. If you want to access it,
ssh tunnel it first.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts
On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:00:22PM +, Greg McCarroll typed: * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :) Rule one of security: Ensure availability for authorised users Rule zero of security: A system with no users is a system with no unauthorised users. For extra points, turn it off. Roger
Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. SCP for Windoz = http://winscp.vse.cz/eng/ SCP for Linux = well, command line scp or what ever else there is. SCP for OSX = http://www.macorchard.com/ftp.html download Rbrowser SCP for Mac = http://www.macorchard.com/ftp.html download NiftyTelnet (the open option has an SCP radio button) The Mac one is NASTY! - the OSX and Windoz ones are just like standard FTP clients (your computer on the left, remove server one the right). If anyone hears of a good gui SCP client for non-OSX mac's I'd really like to know (I've got users on my machine that need it!). Cheers Leo
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:55:28PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: I've been thinking that, while not ideal, webDAV is probably the best option here. I'm told it's a) secure-ish, and b) integrates nicely with Dreamweaver and whatever microsoft's thing is. WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. The other thing is that *WHEN* subversion comes out, the protocol allows for version control, and there'll actually be a decent way of implementing version control, so if the people who are doing the uploading screw up, you have some chance of rolling back. DAV over HTTPS is not that bad, though... MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I don't know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be. -- Abraham Lincoln
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ In case anybody hasn't seen it, it's a very useful win32 ssh program with a terminal emulator. It even comes with an ssh-agent, which is pretty damned useful. Regarding scp, putty comes with pscp, a command line tool for uploading files. The next version also has a beginning implemntation of an sftp client and the latest version of OpenSSH also comes with an sftp server, which you could use. It's still all command line though (and its not released yet). There is a GUI front-end for pscp, available from http://www.i-tree.org/, apparently, although I haven't tried it. I don't know, but you may be able to download an eval version of some nicer copying tools courtesy of one of the professional ssh outfits. -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:08:03PM +, Struan Donald wrote: and people are worrying about plain scp confusing people? ssh tunneling is one of those things that appears close enough to magic that people assume it is. damn useful magic though. plus it always seems such a pain on windows It is. And a word of warning in case anybody tries it: Don't tunnel ftp over ssh. It doesn't work properly. Only 1 tunnel goes over the secure connection. Admittedly, it keeps the password out of the way, but it also leads to a false sense of security about your data being encrypted. -Dom (had to whinge to a Linux Journal author about this one)
Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)
At 03:00 PM 14.3.2001 +, Leo Lapworth wrote: If anyone hears of a good gui SCP client for non-OSX mac's I'd really like to know (I've got users on my machine that need it!). Can Fetch do it? At a glance, I don't see anything about SCP there, but then I've only done a cursory check; it may be in there somewhere. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:01:17PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote: WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:13:46PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: There is a GUI front-end for pscp, available from http://www.i-tree.org/, apparently, although I haven't tried it. This is kind of flakey, and has trouble with stuff like files owned by a user or group with more than 8 characters in its name. This is because it determines filenames by doing ls and then counting a fixed number of columns in from the left. :-( Well, if you've got Delphi handy, you can go in and fix it... -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)
* Neil Ford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. SCP for Windoz = http://winscp.vse.cz/eng/ SCP for Linux = well, command line scp or what ever else there is. SCP for OSX = http://www.macorchard.com/ftp.html download Rbrowser Also see Linux above, seeing as OS X has comes with OpenSSH. (10 days and counting :-) ) OS X shall be a truly wonderful thing, of course the fact that it is even possible is down to the BSD license IIRC, discuss ... ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Matt's Scripts
* at 14/03 14:59 + Mark Fowler said: Do what we do. Keep everything running, but shove a whopping great ipchains (or firewall of choice) in the way. If you want to access it, ssh tunnel it first. Would not ipsec be a better solution? It's transparent to the users, and more reliable than ssh tunnels which tend to drop if not used. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:10:02 +, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:01:17PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote: WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean, it's not hard FFS. An admirable point of view in my opinion. Why would anyone possibly want to run an ISP and have to deal with all the clueless people? Well, quite. Of course, if their computer hasn't got a queueing mail system, then I don't want that either :) MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I don't know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be. -- Abraham Lincoln
