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: 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: 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?
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 10/3/06, 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 expr 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 (:comUp will not work). -- HTH, Hari __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.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 (:comUp 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?
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 10/1/06, 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
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: 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.
