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
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
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
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
- 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
-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
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 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
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.
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
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
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 (
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 1:55:03 PM, Robin wrote:
RS there is a rather good ISP on Hawaii that plainly states 'the service is
RS not suitable for clueless users' .. ring em up and ask too many docile
RS questions and they pull your account ..
My gfriend in pharmacy school plans on having a
* Mike Jarvis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And don't even get her started on child proof caps.
yeah, tell me about it - those things are impossible to get open!
--
Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
35 matches
Mail list logo
