PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:10 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:18 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
But, if the problem is caused by lack of typing, it seems
Try javacast, which is a new function in cfmx
cfscript
x = 1;
y = javacast(int,x);
/cfscript
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:30 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I doubt anyone outside
-
From: Michael Corbridge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Try javacast, which is a new function in cfmx
cfscript
x = 1;
y = javacast(int,x);
/cfscript
-Original Message-
From
So what does the $5000 software do?
That's a silly question. If you want to quickly write presentation logic, CF
MX is the right tool for the job. If you want to do something else, use the
appropriate tool for that job.
Oh Yea i can start writing this with C#, that does NOT
require any
JavaCast isn't new for CFMX as it has been around since CF 4.5. Its
purpose is for helping CF determine which method to call in Java classes
that have overloaded methods.
matt, can you elaborate on this? i've never been able to cast my way thru
overloaded java methods with mx. i've always had
-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I doubt anyone outside of Macromedia can answer that.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
JavaCast isn't new for CFMX as it has been
Take a look at the JavaCast documentation; it is pretty easy to
understand how JavaCast should work. The major problem with JavaCast is
matt i know how it works, just that i've never seen it work as you
suggested.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
So what does the $5000 software do?
That's a silly question. If you want to quickly write presentation logic,
CF
MX is the right tool for the job. If you want to do something else, use
the
appropriate tool for that job.
Oh Yea i can
: Paul Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
JavaCast isn't new for CFMX as it has been around since CF 4.5. Its
purpose is for helping CF determine which method to call in Java classes
performance will be improved over
time, but I don't think it's as simple as you might think. I think it's more
important for MM to focus on the ways that people actually use the product,
instead of atypical test cases like looping a million times.
Why would someone spend $5000 on a software
Joe Eugene wrote:
Perhaps you should start doing some testing... and come with some numbers.
How do you quantify how much a language changes in numbers?
Jochem
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these
out there.
Microsoft VB code does the same thing (Optional Type declarations) as
serveral
others pointed out here.
instead of atypical test cases like looping a million times.
I think it's more than equal in its competitiveness with other web
application servers. The fact is, most business apps
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:44 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
always strongly recommended the use of a compiled language for the
middle tier - you'd only do presentation logic in ASP, and you'd do
anything of any complexity in COM
(under Tomcat), for example:
cfm: 4110 ms
jsp: 50 ms
I fiddled with the program to make sure the actual loop was as similar
as possible and that nothing but the loop was within the timing -- no
significant affect.
I tried longer loops with similar results.
I changed the test
snip
Anyone else have any ideas?
try scoping your variables
z
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ:
and writeoutput in cf 5.0 is slower than cfoutput, did you try the same
test with cfml and not cfscript ?
z
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community
: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:27 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Joe
I didn't try the code, at first, because I can't run jsp under CFMX on
the Mac.
After your email I tried the comparison using jsp under
.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Dick,
CFMX Enterprise was showing the below results for me
Jsp=20ms
Cfm=3064ms
11:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
It seems to me that a code written in JSP or java has the benefit of being
strongly typed... that long loops definition in the JSP code is very
significant to a compiler. Try running that loop again using new Integer
in each
I wonder how the CFMX compiler transforms *.cfm into
servlet code?
You can easily find out yourself, by editing this section of
\CFusionMX\wwwroot\WEB-INF\web.xml:
context-param
param-namecoldfusion.compiler.saveJava/param-name
param-valuefalse/param-value
description
I would think that scoping variables affects the speed of the compiler,
not the speed of execution -- am I wrong?
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 07:55 AM, Zac Spitzer wrote:
snip
Anyone else have any ideas?
try scoping your variables
z
I took all the output out of the timed portion of the code, for both
cfmx and jsp.
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 07:56 AM, Zac Spitzer wrote:
and writeoutput in cf 5.0 is slower than cfoutput, did you try the same
test with cfml and not cfscript ?
z
10:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
and writeoutput in cf 5.0 is slower than cfoutput, did you try the same
test with cfml and not cfscript ?
z
__
This list and all House of Fusion
: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Joe
I didn't try the code, at first, because I can't run jsp under CFMX
on
the Mac.
After your email I tried the comparison using jsp under Tomcat
jwsdp-1_0-ea2.
The results I got are significant.
The cfm program consistently takes more than 40
Sounds like a sound theory. Matt u around? Wondering what
he has to think...I've got a decompiler here but am I
breaking any laws by decompiling a cfm template and
posting it? :-)
I don't know about breaking laws, but you would be ignoring the path of
least resistance, which is simply to
I tried that Dave but could not get mine to output the Java code for some
reason... :\
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:29 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I wonder how the CFMX compiler
I tried that Dave but could not get mine to output the Java
code for some reason... :\
It worked fine for me, on Windows 2000, by just changing the file, cycling
the service, then making a change to a .cfm file. It's possible that your
source is being put somewhere else, I guess - you might
.
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:38 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I was running Developer version with Default web server on the same box
as my browser, mail, editor and apache web server
Mmmm... I don't know much Java, but it appears that the gen'd code
could be optimized.
Dick
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:28 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
I wonder how the CFMX compiler transforms *.cfm into
servlet code?
You can easily find out yourself, by editing this section of
Where the source goes is controlled by the same XML file
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:53 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
It worked fine for me, on Windows 2000, by just changing the file,
cycling
the service, then making a change to a .cfm file. It's possible that
your
source is being
here's the critical piece of gen'd Java code:
STIME.set(coldfusion.runtime.Cast._Object(this.GetTickCount()));
for
(X.set(((java.lang.Object)(1)));_compare(this._autoscalarize(X),10
0.0)=0;X.set(coldfusion.runtime.Cast._Object((coldfusion.runtime.Cast._
Ya'know, in the olden days of maimframes, and CoBOL, RPG, etc, they
used to resolve this sort of problem with an Optimizing compiler.
The Optimzer would perform another pass (either pre or
post-compilation) and try to optimize the code --- especially
subroutines and loops (and other
-namecoldfusion.compiler.saveJava/param-name
param-valuetrue/param-value
This is good info.
Thanks
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:33 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Ya'know, in the olden days
Ya'know, in the olden days of maimframes ...
Wow, computers must have been harder to work with back then than I thought!
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
: dream :: design ::
Probably just disk storage -- be nice to have a cfsetting type option,
though
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Joe Eugene wrote:
Are there any known issues if we leave this set to *true*
param-namecoldfusion.compiler.saveJava/param-name
param-valuetrue/param-value
On further reflection, there may be a simpler way for Macromedia to
optimize code;
Specifically, enhance cfscript to:
1) Allow/encourage type declarations within cfscript blocks.
2) Allow constructs closer to Java such as x++
This would allow type-less coding (CFML ease of use) but encourage
Nah, just as long as you kept the horses fed (who turned the mill...)
..And, you only had three instructions: Sow, Reap and Grind!
Dick
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:12 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
Wow, computers must have been harder to work with back then than I
thought!
don't think your code is typical of what you'd find in a CF page;
a much more interesting test would be one that compared a typical page (with
queries, output, etc) in CF vs the same page in JSP. I suspect the disparity
there would be a lot less, if there even is any.
Are there any known issues
, CFDEV.COM
http://www.cfdev.com/
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:33 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Ya'know, in the olden days of maimframes, and CoBOL, RPG, etc, they
used to resolve this sort
I got similar results -- and you can read the code!
Dick
J2 1.3.1
[TiBook:~/desktop] cfmx% javac JavaScale.java
[TiBook:~/desktop] cfmx% java JavaScale
5050
1032283753982
1032283754009
Elapsed Time:27
[TiBook:~/desktop] cfmx% java JavaScale
5050
1032283760192
1032283760220
]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
It seems to me that a code written in JSP or java has the benefit of
being
strongly typed... that long loops definition in the JSP code is very
significant to a compiler. Try running
PROTECTED]
voice (530)757-3518
fax (530)753-1841
http://reprographics.ucdavis.edu
-Original Message-
From: Pete Freitag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
You can tell the Java Compiler
) Allow constructs closer to Java such as x++
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On further reflection, there may be a simpler way for Macromedia
That gives:
CFMX
=
100 Loops
1493324758ms Start Time
5050 Result
1493328209ms End Time
3451ms Execution Time
3.451seconds
JSP (Tomcat)
==
100 Loops
1032285464559ms Start Time
5050 Result
1032285465024ms End Time
465ms Execution Time
0.0seconds
Closer,
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
While the above is closer to the work the CF version has to do, it is
still missing some casting overhead. This is because in CFMX all simple
CF variables are stored using coldfusion.runtime.Variable, which
actually stores the
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
That gives:
CFMX
=
100 Loops
1493324758ms Start Time
5050 Result
1493328209ms End Time
3451ms
: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
While the above is closer to the work the CF version has to do, it
is
still missing some casting overhead. This is because
Aw, c'mon Matt, that's not the point, and you know it!
There are certain things that can benefit from optimization, frequently
executed loops or other iterative processes are prime targets.
You can do just so much with best practices.
Coding time-sensitive routines in Java or JSP may not be
, September 17, 2002 1:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
perhaps we need an update/patch on the cfmx compiler
for intelligent parsing.
Maybe, but on the other hand, it may be the way it is for a reason.
First of all, this is a common issue with code generators, which
(CFMX) -- Test Code
Aw, c'mon Matt, that's not the point, and you know it!
There are certain things that can benefit from optimization,
frequently
executed loops or other iterative processes are prime targets.
You can do just so much with best practices.
Coding time-sensitive routines
Sure, but it doesn't seem like optimizing this specific
case is really going to help anyone in the real world.
Aw, c'mon Matt, that's not the point, and you know it!
I was going to leave this alone, but I agree completely with Matt here. It
would be much more interesting and useful to see
Just chiming in here...
If you're doing some code that you know can be optimized (by looking at the
java file produced by CFMX), then doesn't is make sense to just optimize it
yourself in java? I would imagine that if you ARE looking at the java code,
then you at least know enough to get
in optimizing just to make esoteric test cases run better.
Does any one have any real-world pages coded in both?
Can you use the same technique to reveal the Java source generated by
jsp? (Remember I can't run jsp on OS X).
Dick
think they need them. (others just ignore it and stick
with old style code)
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Sure, but it doesn't seem like
and it will still be faster
right?
So whats your argument to your CLIENT for using CFMX just RAD?
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Darron J. Schall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Just chiming
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:06 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
for
(X.set(((java.lang.Object)(1)));_compare(this._autoscalarize(X),10
0.0)=0;X.set(coldfusion.runtime.Cast._Object((coldfusion.runtime.Cast._
double(this._autoscalarize(X)))+(1.0{{
Note the assumption that all
marriage, when used in conjunction
at the right times. :-)
-Darron
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
That way you don't have to rely on the CFMX compiler at all
is a great marriage, when used in conjunction
at the right times. :-)
-Darron
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
That way you don't have to rely on the CFMX
Sean
I was not suggesting that CFMX try to track an variable to determine
its type.
Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
(optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code,
How hard can it be -- even VBS and JavaScript can do it?
Sure, if you don't
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
(optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code,
That would make ColdFusion quite a different language! :)
Yes, it's certainly one possible
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:18 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
But, if the problem is caused by lack of typing, it seems to me that
this is something MM can fix rather easily by allowing type definition
by those who want to do it, and generating efficient code if it is
present or use the
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Daron
I think the point
-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:10 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:18 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
But, if the problem is caused by lack of typing, it seems to me that
this is something MM can fix rather easily by allowing type definition
by those who want
With the list server, no. With the MX server that routes mail to the list, yes. I've
been getting a lot of complaints about bounced mail with a message of routing not
allowed and the like. I've been told that this has been fixed but if you get such a
message, just repost. Only repost if you
Testing -- ignore
Candace K. Cottrell, Web Developer
The Children's Medical Center
One Children's Plaza
Dayton, OH 45404
937-641-4293
http://www.childrensdayton.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Get the mailserver that powers
is there anything going on with the list server?
Joe
__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
test
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk
Can some of you send a test email to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I'm trying to get MX resolution down and Yahoo, hotmail etc... does not see it yet
some other mx lookups do
Thanks,
Brian
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news
(Name server: nvpooka.com:
no data known)
Douglas Brown
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Brian Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:38 PM
Subject: Test Email
Can some of you send a test email to [EMAIL
It appears to be down around certain parts... Other sources say the MX
record is good. I'll wait and see.. Thanks,
Brian
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Test Email
Test
Yves
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
just seeing if a successfully went back to immediate delivery from digest.
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ:
TEST
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk
test
-Original Message-
From: Frank Mamone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 9:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: TEST
TEST
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest
Is CF-Talk up and running ok?
Joe
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ:
test
Michael Dinowitz
Master of the House of Fusion
http://www.houseoffusion.com
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com
Gyrus wrote:
We've just set up as resellers with a new host, and we're on a 30-day trial
period, during which we hope to fully guage the stability and security of
the environment.
Do any of you have a standard set of CF test for checking out the security
of a shared hosting environment
TEST
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http
We've just set up as resellers with a new host, and we're on a 30-day trial
period, during which we hope to fully guage the stability and security of
the environment.
Do any of you have a standard set of CF test for checking out the security
of a shared hosting environment? The hosts we're
Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do so. Please
DO NOT post to this thread past 5am. Thank you.
test 2
Michael Dinowitz
Master of the House of Fusion
http://www.houseoffusion.com
- Original Message -
From: Michael Dinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED
Got it
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 30 August 2002 4:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: test
Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do
so. Please DO NOT post to this thread past 5am. Thank you.
test
replying :)
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 2:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: test
Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do
so. Please DO NOT post to this thread past 5am. Thank you
Reply No.1 at 12:01 am PDT
At 11:58 PM 8/29/02, you wrote:
Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do so. Please
DO NOT post to this thread past 5am. Thank you.
test 2
Michael Dinowitz
Master of the House of Fusion
http://www.houseoffusion.com
test reply
--
jon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, August 30, 2002, 2:58:41 AM, you wrote:
MD Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do so.
Please DO NOT post to this thread past 5am. Thank you.
test 2
Michael Dinowitz
Master of the House of Fusion
Test # 3
At 02:59 AM 8/30/02, you wrote:
replying :)
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 2:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: test
Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do
so. Please DO
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit before the
'normal' people wake up to use it.
Hi Mike,
5am? Your not talking GMT I take it ;-)
~|
Archives/subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com
saw about 20 bounces come back to me Michael.. everyone else getting those
too?
-paris
-Original Message-
From: Brian Scandale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 3:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: test
Reply No.1 at 12:01 am PDT
At 11:58 PM 8/29/02, you wrote
Some of you posting on this thread may accidentally get some returned error messages.
That's been fixed already. Sorry.
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit before
the 'normal' people wake up to use it.
Hi Mike,
5am? Your not talking GMT I take
, 2002 3:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: test
Reply No.1 at 12:01 am PDT
At 11:58 PM 8/29/02, you wrote:
Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do
so. Please DO NOT post to this thread past 5am. Thank you.
test 2
Michael Dinowitz
Master
: Test
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit
before the 'normal' people wake up to use it.
Hi Mike,
5am? Your not talking GMT I take it ;-)
~|
Archives/subscription: http
Lets see if this one is better (and faster).
Some of you posting on this thread may accidentally get some returned error
messages. That's been fixed already. Sorry.
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit before
the 'normal' people wake up to use
]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 3:29 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Test
Some of you posting on this thread may accidentally get some returned error
messages. That's been fixed already. Sorry.
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit
before the 'normal' people wake up
We're here :-)
Anyone who is on right now and wants to reply to this test post, please do
so. Please DO NOT post to this thread past 5am. Thank you.
--
Yours,
Kym
~|
Archives/subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit
before the 'normal' people wake up to use it.
So we are not 'normal'? :^)
Actually we probably aren't, living upside down here :-)
--
Yours,
Kym
-
From: mm m [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 3:14 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Test
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit
before the 'normal' people wake up to use it.
Hi Mike,
5am? Your not talking GMT I take
Hm. I'm getting duplicates from the mail server on some messages. Not good. :(
Nope. EST. I've upgraded the entire list setup and I want to test it a bit
before the 'normal' people wake up to use it.
So we are not 'normal'? :^)
Actually we probably aren't, living upside down here
Hm. I'm getting duplicates from the mail server on some messages. Not good. :(
Not here :-)
--
Yours,
Kym
~|
Archives/subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
This list and all House of Fusion
901 - 1000 of 1366 matches
Mail list logo
