Re: Strange Request
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 to deal with this problem, there is a near miss in the perl cookbook, however to tackle the problem directly, maybe ORA need to commission a Perl CGI Cookbook. all the good classic web problems, with simple ready to run examples. forums, guestbooks, counters, voting, etc. Maybe we should join the many people who've had a go at this... setup a CVS repository on penderel, get on with it. I have debugged 'plug-compatible' versions of the Guestbook and the FFA program on this machine right now if anyone does care to start it ... /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gellyfish.com
Re: Strange Request
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 PROTECTED] http://www.btinternet.com/~gellyfish/ http://www.gellyfish.com
Re: Strange Request
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 Matt Wright, with a CD including many scripts from his site. What made even more amused was that there was a whacking great recommendation to buy it, blazoned across the top, from the one and only Randal Schwartz. Hm I bought this book a couple of years ago with the plan to write a damning criticism of it. Never had the time tho'. Maybe someday... Randal says that his comments were quoted out of context and that it was the last time he accepted payment for commenting on a book. Dave... If anyone is interested the web site for the book is at: http://www.cgi-perl.com/ Randal's comment is: This book should definitely be on your shelf for ready-to-run programs and inspiration for your own custom programs. According to the website Randal Schwartz is co-author of 'Programming in Perl', has anyone seen this book, is it any good? Just been wandering around the website and (as an owner of the book) was able to access the 'private' areas. There's a message board for the discussion of the scripts in the book and it's based on Matt's wwwboard script. Current messages have dates like 3/12/101 and when you read the message the full date is March 12, 19101 at 17:58:28! Good advert for the book - lucky you only get to see it once you've read the book! Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Strange Request
* 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 software'' and run it on their site. until there is something better available with as much visibility, matt still gets a tiny tiny tiny bit of credit thats all imho, but then again i'm in far too good a mood today -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Strange Request
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 board and tidy up his code for him ;) Thanks to everyone who sent me code off list. I shall protect the names of the not quite innocent. Dean -- Profanity is the one language all programmers understand --- Anon
RE: Strange Request
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 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 to not be involved with Perl for a year?
Re: Strange Request
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 there was a whacking great recommendation to buy it, blazoned across the top, from the one and only Randal Schwartz. Hm Yeees. I don't think you're meant to mention that in polite society :-) -- 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: Strange Request
* 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 five years of misinformation and achieve that. 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 to not be involved with Perl for a year? couldn't we just raise enough cash to send him on a decent perl training course? that way he might re-write his stuff. although the sheer twistedness of the above does appeal :) struan
Re: Strange Request
* 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 resources to deal with this problem, there is a near miss in the perl cookbook, however to tackle the problem directly, maybe ORA need to commission a Perl CGI Cookbook. all the good classic web problems, with simple ready to run examples. forums, guestbooks, counters, voting, etc. Maybe we should join the many people who've had a go at this... setup a CVS repository on penderel, get on with it. was that the sound of someone volunteering? struan
RE: Strange Request
That's Selena Sol. He's almost as bad as Matt. I thought Selena was female. Oh well.
Re: Strange Request
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 to not be involved with Perl for a year? I thought Matt gives away the scripts for free, so what revenue is involved probably comes from banner ads. And from what I heard, Matt wrote those scripts several years ago and isn't doing much on them these days, so paying him to "not be involved with Perl" probably won't change what he's doing. Or has he produced something new recently? (Too lazy to check.) For all I know, he might even be a decent Perl programmer now, but too lazy or apathetic to go and update all of his scripts. Or he might be a Java programmer now and say "here are some scripts I wrote some time ago; you're free to use them on an as-is basis but I'm not doing any maintenance on them as I've moved on". 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: Strange Request
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 ;)
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 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 "random text CGI" thingy as a mod_perl/TT drop-in. -- 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: Strange Request
- 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 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 "random text CGI" thingy as a mod_perl/TT drop-in. 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 don't think it would be a replacement for Matt's if the users can't run it... /Robert [1]please ignore me if this isn't the case :)
Re: Strange Request
"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 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 "random text CGI" thingy as a mod_perl/TT drop-in. 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 don't think it would be a replacement for Matt's if the users can't run it... /Robert [1]please ignore me if this isn't the case :) I'd argue that recent distros come with mod_perl out of the box and that should be used in such situations by default. -- 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: Strange Request
* 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 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 "random text CGI" thingy as a mod_perl/TT drop-in. 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 don't think it would be a replacement for Matt's if the users can't run it... if this project ever did get moving, you'd want to measure each script against categories such as .. Runs on Win32 Runs on Linux Runs on Solaris Runs on any web server or Runs only on apache Requires the following modules blah blah 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 -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Strange Request
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 showing how each of these work.
The biggest problem I have with using these 'branches' of perl is knowing
where to start. If we had a collection of standard scripts that was
re-written each time in TT, XML::* or whatever, then I (or other clueless
monkeys like me) could work from what they know how to start, where to go,
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: Strange Request
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] 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 "random text CGI" thingy as a mod_perl/TT drop-in. 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 don't think it would be a replacement for Matt's if the users can't run it... /Robert [1]please ignore me if this isn't the case :) I'd argue that recent distros come with mod_perl out of the box and that should be used in such situations by default. 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 by the sysadmins and beyond the ability of most users. This may make the project a good deal less enjoyable, but I still think it's very worth-while. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Strange Request
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: 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 "random text CGI" thingy as a mod_perl/TT drop-in. 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 don't think it would be a replacement for Matt's if the users can't run it... if this project ever did get moving, you'd want to measure each script against categories such as .. Runs on Win32 Runs on Linux Runs on Solaris Runs on any web server or Runs only on apache Requires the following modules blah blah My opinion is that the only way this project could work is if the scripts worked on _any_ web server on _any_ platform with _no_ extra modules. Matt Wright can achieve that and we're all much cleverer than he is, so we should be able to do it too. 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 An interesting project, but IMHO it's a completely different one. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Strange Request
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 don't think it would be a replacement for Matt's if the users can't run it... I agree completely. I'd go as far as to suggest that these replacement scripts should only use standard modules as well. The second that it becomes just a bit harder to use our scripts than it is to use Matt's we've lost most of our potential audience. Any well written script we write will use CGI.pm. Unless we ship CGI.pm with the scripts, the fact that there are many many broken perl installs out there will mean such a script will be harder to use than matt wright's code. 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. We simply can't compete with Matt on backwards compatibility as his scripts all run on 4.036! Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Strange Request
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 by the sysadmins and beyond the ability of most users. Much better argument. What about taint-safety? This may make the project a good deal less enjoyable, but I still think it's very worth-while. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug -- 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: Strange Request
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 installing CPAN modules is frowned on by the sysadmins and beyond the ability of most users. Much better argument. What about taint-safety? All of our scripts must have "-T" and will do whatever is necessary to clean up external data. I see this as one of our big selling points - "our scripts don't allow users to delete all your files". Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
RE: Strange Request
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 other scripts are welcome. Surely there's nothing stopping you organising the archive in terms dependencies on other modules. Sort of - this will work on anything, but if your system allows scripts to use TT, why not use *this*? -- matt jones
Re: Strange Request
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 were comments in the code to make it run OK on Win32 and I had it working in no time. /Robert
Re: Strange Request
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, technical strategy -
Re: Strange Request
* 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
Re: Strange Request
### 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, and other scripts are welcome. I don't think we actually need to lower to teh lowest common denominator - by applying the ROPE idea it should be possible to provide some easy bundles with their own namespace that the user can just unzip and ftp to their own local_modules/rope. If you provide scripts that work with perl5.x base but also provide scripts that use rope::lite, or rope::intermediate bundles the user will still be interested in using the bundle and we can encourage them to use modules and set them on the path to rightesusness. I think something like this would be the ultimate test of the ROPE concept. Given that there will be idiot proof scripts replacing msa ones, these will be limited greatly by not using modules, assuming a simple web based layout you can hive nice icons saying that Script N is **ready to run**, **requires rope::lite**, **requires rope::intermediate**, **requires quite a lot**, **requires apache**, **requires a little know how**, etc. 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: Strange Request
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 for ALL modules. - referer checker - CGI parser - Security stuff ? - Other.. ? - Maybe there should be a user 'sys_conf' file where all the user configurations go, making it easier than Matt's having to edit each file. 3) Create a 'standard' - methods, documentation etc. 4) Put someone in charge of each script: responsible for: - Review of current code - Creating a doc with all features - current (rand_image - which could be added. (rand_image support image size!s) - Sending this to the mailing list - Following up all comments. - Re-coding (either with others or not). - Test procedure for platforms / configurations. 5) Workout how we will catagroies these pieces of code, keywords, requirements, tests done etc.. 5) Create web site with: - Easy to use 'standard' aka Matt esk section - Other modules which need more installs (e.g. TT based) - Complex modules (require configuration / mod_perl) 6) Repeat for other non-Matt code, e.g. forums / BBS's Does anyone know if CPAN's pause system available, could we impliment it for this project ? - or would a new system be better ? Anyway, as I said I'll give it a go setting something up in a couple of weeks if someone hasn't got there first. Cheers Leo
Re: Strange Request
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 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 open relays. (joke) -- 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: Strange Request
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 open relays. If it's the local network the ability to relay SMTP through a machine would be entirely sensible, surely? Ah. Now what you want is to get a machine off ORBS to try and relay mail through them with some source-routed path :) That's the way to abuse them. :) MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) Tell me, O Octopus, I begs, / Is those things arms, or is they legs? / I marvel at thee, Octopus; / If I were thou, I'd call me us. -- Ogden Nash
Re: Strange Request
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, which is that we'll have to send all mail by piping to sendmail. And that really hits your cross-platform compatibility. Why is this a problem? /usr/lib/sendmail is the published interface. And for those unfortunate enough to be using Windows? Then are they going to be running an SMTP listener? If so, where? I neither know nor care. I was taking issue with your claim that relying on /usr/lib/sendmail is a good idea. -- 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: Strange Request
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 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. Why is this a problem? /usr/lib/sendmail is the published interface. And for those unfortunate enough to be using Windows? Then are they going to be running an SMTP listener? If so, where? 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 of your original claim that relying on an SMTP listener is a good idea. What happens if, say, your reverse DNS is temporarily unavailable, and some hosts are deferring messages from you? This policy will probably be implemented across backup MXs too. SMTP allows for deferral. If you can't stick them on a queue, you shouldn't be trying to do SMTP. /usr/lib/sendmail is a good interface for not worrying about this, as it will always put messages on a queue in the first place. 4xx are deferrals. Also, some MXs are *slow*. How do you guarantee to do your SMTP asynchronously from your HTTP transaction? If you neither know nor care, then why advocate this in the first place? MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) Tell me, O Octopus, I begs, / Is those things arms, or is they legs? / I marvel at thee, Octopus; / If I were thou, I'd call me us. -- Ogden Nash
Re: Strange Request
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 +, 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, which is that we'll have to send all mail by piping to sendmail. And that really hits your cross-platform compatibility. Why is this a problem? /usr/lib/sendmail is the published interface. And for those unfortunate enough to be using Windows? Then are they going to be running an SMTP listener? If so, where? 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 of your original claim that relying on an SMTP listener is a good idea. What happens if, say, your reverse DNS is temporarily unavailable Then you have more important things to worry about, such as finding an ISP with a clue. and some hosts are deferring messages from you? This policy will probably be implemented across backup MXs too. SMTP allows for deferral. If you can't stick them on a queue, you shouldn't be trying to do SMTP. Why not? It's not as if the sort of people using web-mail scripts without their own mail server have anything important to say. If it was important, they would invest in their own server or at least an ISP that provided appropriate facilities. Of course, what you should do is try *both*. Actually, you should first try to use a module. If that fails, see if /usr/lib/sendmail exists and is executable. If it is, then great, use it. If it isn't available, try direct SMTP. Graceful degradation is a Good Thing. /usr/lib/sendmail is a good interface for not worrying about this, as it will always put messages on a queue in the first place. 4xx are deferrals. Also, some MXs are *slow*. How do you guarantee to do your SMTP asynchronously from your HTTP transaction? If you neither know nor care, then why advocate this in the first place? Cos it's wrong to just assume sendmail is available. BTW, try reading what I write in future. If you had, you would have noticed that I said "(joke)" after talking about looking for relays. If you think that counts as 'advocating' that, then I would suggest investing in some English lessons. -- 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: Strange Request
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 of your original claim that relying on an SMTP listener is a good idea. What happens if, say, your reverse DNS is temporarily unavailable Then you have more important things to worry about, such as finding an ISP with a clue. Yes, agreed. But you shouldn't just be injecting mail unless you know what will happen on failure. Handling errors sensibly is a part of good programming. and some hosts are deferring messages from you? This policy will probably be implemented across backup MXs too. SMTP allows for deferral. If you can't stick them on a queue, you shouldn't be trying to do SMTP. Why not? It's not as if the sort of people using web-mail scripts without their own mail server have anything important to say. If it was important, they would invest in their own server or at least an ISP that provided appropriate facilities. Personally I don't want to lose mail. This could happen if I try to do SMTP and get it wrong. It is less likely to happen with (eg) batch SMTP or a sendmail -t implementation. Of course, what you should do is try *both*. Actually, you should first try to use a module. If that fails, see if /usr/lib/sendmail exists and is executable. If it is, then great, use it. If it isn't available, try direct SMTP. Graceful degradation is a Good Thing. Agreed. What do you think the module will do? :) /usr/lib/sendmail is a good interface for not worrying about this, as it will always put messages on a queue in the first place. 4xx are deferrals. Also, some MXs are *slow*. How do you guarantee to do your SMTP asynchronously from your HTTP transaction? If you neither know nor care, then why advocate this in the first place? Cos it's wrong to just assume sendmail is available. It's also wrong to assume that SMTP is available. :) BTW, try reading what I write in future. If you had, you would have noticed that I said "(joke)" after talking about looking for relays. I wasn't actually replying to that, if you go back in the cascade. I realise that that is a joke :). It was the other bit I was replying to. If you think that counts as 'advocating' that, then I would suggest investing in some English lessons. You might want these lessons, to read the cascade. That was a seperate subthread. sorry. you lose. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) Tell me, O Octopus, I begs, / Is those things arms, or is they legs? / I marvel at thee, Octopus; / If I were thou, I'd call me us. -- Ogden Nash
Re: Strange Request
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?
Re: Strange Request
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.
Re: Strange Request
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 made the decision not to burn the tapes." - President Richard Nixon
Re: Strange Request
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 have a public CGI directory available to all our Unix hosting customers. included is FormMail, the industry-standard form-to-email processor." ^ Does that strike you with fear and dread, then? :-) (This after having Nildram be recommended as a good hosting place.) 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: Strange Request
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." ^ Does that strike you with fear and dread, then? :-) 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. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Strange Request
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 FormMail, the industry-standard form-to-email processor." ^ Does that strike you with fear and dread, then? :-) 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 anything freely available? dha -- David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Cassell's Corollary: Sturgeon would have upped that number if he'd seen the Internet.
Re: Strange Request
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 anything freely available? a couple of years ago (well .. 5 maybe) I think you would have been right .. .ISP's (cos thats the industry we are talking about) had money and a desire to spend it ... Cisco firewalls and Exchange Swerver etc ... but the ISP market has changed a lot, firstly the sysadmins are taking up the linux/opensource stuff more and more because it works, and secondly the margins and money available for F expensive kit simply isn;t there .. the ISP market is having its prices driven down and that means using cheap technology. Sure it has to work because crappy software costs much more to admin than decent s/w but the drive to keep costs down ahs forced many ISPs to take the open source/free stuff route .. unfortunatley for the planet FormMail is now so standard that if you didn;t have it your punters would ask for it! .. err probably -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Strange Request
Does any one here have any smallish programs (around the 50 lines mark) that are badly written and need a tidy up? (I've seen the 12 steps, i know your hiding the good stuff) I'm looking for a few bits of 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 ;) Dean -- Profanity is the one language all programmers understand --- Anon
Re: Strange Request
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 by the now infamous Matt Wright ever again...) -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) VMS, n.: The world's foremost multi-user adventure game.
