On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 10:58:36AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
how to solve this, will there is an easy way that would deal with
the problem at source - perl certification
*duck*
having said in another email how there were no resources
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
I've just seen a downside to the "no non-standard modules" rule, which is
that we'll have to send all mail by piping to sendmail. And that really
hits your cross-platform compatibility.
You've got Socket of course :)
/J\
--
Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL
At 09:32 13/03/2001, you wrote:
At 09:27 13/03/01 +, you wrote:
At 09:08 13/03/2001, you wrote:
If all else fails I'll be raiding Matts script archive ;)
Walking round PC World yesterday (nice to look at things then buy them 50
cheaper online :) ) and spotted a Perl Book written by
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Good advert for the book - lucky you only get to see it once you've read
the book!
not read, bought! theres the big catch
still we've done this argument several times and at the end of the day
people want to be able to just grab a piece of ``perl cgi
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:52:12AM +, Dave Cross wrote:
Just been wandering around the website and (as an owner of the book) was
able to access the 'private' areas.
Well if you have a look at the vulnerabilitys database on securityfocus.com
then you too can be an admin of the message
There's a marketing battle that needs to be fought first. We
need, somehow,
to ensure that newbie CGI programmers read criticisms of
Matt's scripts
_before_ they find Matt's Script Archive. And I don't know
how you're going
to undo five years of misinformation and achieve that.
Maybe we
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:08:52AM -, Miss Barbell wrote:
Walking round PC World yesterday (nice to look at things then buy them 50
cheaper online :) ) and spotted a Perl Book written by Matt Wright, with a
CD including many scripts from his site. What made even more amused was that
* at 13/03 10:43 - Jonathan Peterson said:
There's a marketing battle that needs to be fought first. We
need, somehow,
to ensure that newbie CGI programmers read criticisms of
Matt's scripts
_before_ they find Matt's Script Archive. And I don't know
how you're going
to undo
* at 13/03 10:56 + Michael Stevens said:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 10:58:36AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
how to solve this, will there is an easy way that would deal with
the problem at source - perl certification
*duck*
having said in another email how there were no
That's Selena Sol. He's almost as bad as Matt.
I thought Selena was female. Oh well.
Jonathan Peterson wrote:
Maybe we need to sponsor Matt Wright? The inverse of the
Damian sponsorship, we would cover whatever revenue he gets
from his scripts in return for him shutting all the sites
down for a year, and redirecting everyone somewhere else.
What do you reckon? Sponsor Matt
No, but it's run by Matt. That's a list of CGI scripts written by loads of
people - there are even some old embarrassments of mine in there :-/
You know we are all scrambling to find it now ;)
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good idea and would be happy to get involved. What I'd
like to see is a series of "drop in" replacements for Matt's scripts. There
are counts 15 scripts on Matt's site. How long would it take us to
rewrite them all?
I've done his
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Hodgkinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 March 2001 12:49
Subject: Re: Strange Request
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good idea and would be happy to get involved. What I'd
like to see i
"Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Hodgkinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 March 2001 12:49
Subject: Re: Strange Request
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good idea and w
* Robert Shiels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Hodgkinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 March 2001 12:49
Subject: Re: Strange Request
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good idea and would be ha
and here we get back to the ROPE project as discussed before, where we
could do a standard distribution of Apache/Mod Perl/Perl/Perl modules,
with TT, XML::*, etc.,etc. already there
Might not be a bad idea doing each of these in each of the technologies
anyhow. It might prove a good way of
At 13:05 13/03/2001, you wrote:
"Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Hodgkinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 March 2001 12:49
Subject: Re: Strange Request
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr
At 15:10 13/03/2001, you wrote:
* Robert Shiels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Hodgkinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 March 2001 12:49
Subject: Re: Strange Request
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 14:33 13/03/2001, you wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 02:34:50PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
I haven't looked at Matts scripts, but I get the feeling that they are
aimed
at beginners who have a fairly standard perl/apache installation[1]. I'm
sure your solution will be much better, but I
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd argue that you're _massively_ overestimating our audience there. Most
the Matt's users are people who have accounts with web hosting companies
who only allow FTP access. mod_perl usually _isn't_ installed and
installing CPAN modules is frowned on
At 13:50 13/03/2001, you wrote:
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd argue that you're _massively_ overestimating our audience there. Most
the Matt's users are people who have accounts with web hosting companies
who only allow FTP access. mod_perl usually _isn't_ installed and
do you exclude this script from the archive on the basis that it
uses TT?
this question defines the archive of scripts a little. is the
collection of scripts specifically aimed at the lowest commond
denominator and tackling the MW problem directly, or is that
just its core mission, and
From: "Dave Cross" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You need to define a standard and stick to it. I suggest we write to Perl
5.004_04 as it was a) pretty stable and b) the first to include CGI.pm.
Agreed. I just installed one of his scripts on my laptop, Win98, Apache
1.3.9, ActiveState's Perl5.6. There
How about a hackfest one afternoon? A dozen people in a room with
machines/laptops, pair programming...
--
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com
Interim CTO, web server farms,
* Dave Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
How about a hackfest one afternoon? A dozen people in a room with
machines/laptops, pair programming...
have you ever tried herding cats?
--
Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
### warning - creature feep ###
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Aaron Trevena wrote:
this question defines the archive of scripts a little. is the
collection of scripts specifically aimed at the lowest commond
denominator and tackling the MW problem directly, or is that
just its core mission,
Ok, this is obviously a good idea, some comment / ideas:
1) Create nms server (Not Matt Scripts).
- setup mailing list(s).
- I'm happy to host in a couple of weeks
2) Review and work out a 'core' module which
can be part of the distrobution and impliment
CGI.pm equiv stuff
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:00:41PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
I've just seen a downside to the "no non-standard modules" rule, which is
that we'll have to send all mail by piping to sendmail. And that really
hits your cross-platform compatibility.
Write some stuff which will scan the local
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:47:48PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
Write some stuff which will scan the local network for open relays and
then just talk SMTP to them. Someone stupid enough to not be able to
install modules is stupid enough to have
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:19:46PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:09:42PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
I've just seen a downside to the "no non-standard modules" rule,
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:19:46PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:09:42PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
I've just seen a
Weee! Cascade!
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:38:52PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:19:46PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:09:42PM +,
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:38:52PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
I neither know nor care. I was taking issue with your claim that relying
on /usr/lib/sendmail is a good idea.
This arose because
I've just seen a downside to the "no non-standard modules" rule, which is
that we'll have to send all mail by piping to sendmail. And that really
hits your cross-platform compatibility.
Is IO::Socket cross platform?
Redvers Davies wrote:
Is IO::Socket cross platform?
I believe so. At least, if the platform supports sockets.
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.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 02:45:30PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
We simply can't compete with Matt on backwards compatibility as his scripts
all run on 4.036!
If you call that "running"... :-/
dha
--
David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
"I was under medication when I
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
MBM (runs away very fast from ever having to touch a piece of
code by the now infamous Matt Wright ever again...)
That reminds me of something I saw on the weekend:
http://neptune.nildram.co.uk/users/cgi.php3 , last paragraph:
"For your convienience, we
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, you wrote:
http://neptune.nildram.co.uk/users/cgi.php3 , last paragraph:
"For your convienience, we have a public CGI directory
available to all our Unix hosting customers. included is
FormMail, the industry-standard form-to-email processor."
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:28:42AM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, you wrote:
http://neptune.nildram.co.uk/users/cgi.php3 , last paragraph:
"For your convienience, we have a public CGI directory
available to all our Unix hosting customers. included is
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, you wrote:
well .. to be fair .. yes its appalling Perl but it works, and it IS the
industry standard if only because there is nothing better freely
available.
Maybe I missed a meeting again, but doesn't the "industry" tend to
refuse the standardness of
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Dean wrote:
code (Not Obfuscated contest level though :)) that i can use as
examples of bad coding style.
If all else fails I'll be raiding Matts script archive ;)
This is probably your best bet :)
MBM (runs away very fast from ever having to touch a piece of code
42 matches
Mail list logo
