RE: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Cross David - dcross
here? To so somethign that flows like A Matt's script but is done right? Drop in replacements for Matt's scripts using best practices - but no external modules. And didn't we have the argument(s) about sendmail vs. Net::SMTP and inline HTML vs. template? Yep. But Net::SMTP is not a stadard

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
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

RE: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Paul Makepeace
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:06:46AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: was discussion, however, on widnoze, (not sure about vanilla mac (rather than os x)) there is no sensible way to do a queued message. open EMAIL, c:\webmas~1.txt; Paul

RE: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Cross David - dcross
for rewriting matt's scripts in the first place - that the error handling sucks. You can't sensibly error handle with Net::SMTP. This is why there was discussion, however, on widnoze, (not sure about vanilla mac (rather than os x)) there is no sensible way to do a queued message. Feel free

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread will
- 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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Robert Shiels
-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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Robert Shiels
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

RE: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Simon Batistoni
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

RE: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Simon Batistoni
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread David Cantrell
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Robin Szemeti
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!

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Simon Wilcox
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Robert Shiels
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.

RE: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Cross David - dcross
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.

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Richard Clamp
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-01 Thread Mark Fowler
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-01 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-01 Thread Dave Cross
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.

Not Matt's Scripts

2001-04-30 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
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. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Philip Newton
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Philip Newton
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.

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Jonathan Stowe
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Robert Shiels
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Robin Houston
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 (

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Robin Houston
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

Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Simon Wilcox
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

Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Philip Newton
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,

Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread David Cantrell
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

Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Robin Houston
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

Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Simon Wilcox
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

Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-27 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-26 Thread Jonathan Stowe
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-26 Thread Dave Cross
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

Re: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-03-25 Thread Jonathan Stowe
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

Matt's Scripts Replacement - The name and sundry other things.

2001-03-23 Thread Simon Batistoni
I thought that 'EasyScripts' (or, even, 'EZScripts') had most people's approval. I thought it ws alright - well, taking the target audience into account :) ...which is the *only* important factor in this equation. I'm still enough of a newbie (those on IRC will have just experienced my joy

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-22 Thread Philip Newton
Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) Which, according to its home page at

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-22 Thread Dominic Mitchell
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-22 Thread Dominic Mitchell
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: [unzip] Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Jonathan Stowe
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Seems like we've made a reasonable start on this project. We already have a few scripts written - anyone want to report progress on any of the others? I have Guestbook, FFA and simple search all ready to for testing elsewhere - I'll package and upload

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Gareth Harper
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Snip * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Mark Fowler
On the subject of having zip archives as well as tarballs on the server, Gareth Harper said: Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by default so that may not be neccesary. Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Gareth Harper
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] sa

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Marty Pauley
On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Robin Szemeti
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Gareth Harper
- Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assumi

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Simon Wilcox
At 15:40 20/03/2001 +, Gareth Harper wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread brianr
Marty Pauley writes: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up

RE: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Matthew Jones
Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Excewpt that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just have a little WinZip icon[0], which

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Robin Szemeti
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Redvers Davies
All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst

RE: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Chris Devers
At 04:07 PM 20.3.2001 +, you wrote: Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Except that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Robin Szemeti
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread David Cantrell
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:43:08AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote: ...except that the Windows extension hiding feature only applies to files seen through the normal filesystem tools (Windows Explorer, various dialog boxes, etc), and not Internetty stuff. People might still be scared off by seeing

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread David Cantrell
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Aaron Trevena
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Robert Shiels
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Gareth Harper
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects .tar.gz - wtf is that, why isn't there a zip file. People keep misunderstanding this point: just because someon

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Robin Szemeti
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) NAMEunzip - list, test and extract compressed files in a ZI

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-20 Thread Jonathan Stowe
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to

Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Dave Cross
Seems like we've made a reasonable start on this project. We already have a few scripts written - anyone want to report progress on any of the others? What we need now is to start to impose some structure on the project. Here are a few ideas: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) * Testing both

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Mark Fowler
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: * Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be a subdirectory on london.pm.org. I don't mind doing this bit of it. I would quite like the idea of creating a few

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Mark Fowler
It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC has concluded that: a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title. b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1]. But apart from that we've been useless Later.

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Simon Wilcox
At 12:40 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC has concluded that: a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title. So "Not the Matt Wright Archive" is out then ;-) b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Dave Cross
At Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:27:57 + (GMT), jo walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) i can sort this, perhaps with veeghelp. for leon and marcel's aspect oriented programming project we started a /home/projects directory, we could put the not-matt stuff in there

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Simon Wilcox
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even

RE: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Simon Batistoni
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Robert Shiels
From: "Simon Wilcox" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 March 2001 13:34 Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies.

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Simon Wistow
Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ...

Re: Matt's Scripts Projects

2001-03-19 Thread Simon Wilcox
At 14:59 19/03/2001 +, Simon Wistow wrote: Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ... ... it would all be in XML ;-)

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-18 Thread Jonathan Stowe
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote: OK, here's a list of Matt's scripts. If you'd like to have a go at rewriting one or two under the rules we've discussed (no external modules, -T, use strict, -w, etc), put you name next to it on this list. Simple Search Oh I have done that one

Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..

2001-03-17 Thread Dave Cross
At 16:44 16/03/2001, you wrote: Leo Lapworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! Ah. This is probably a good time to back out. One of the other Daves beat me to it, and far better

Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..

2001-03-16 Thread Leo Lapworth
Hi Guys, I've created a random image generator (not Matt complient) that I needed for a friend. Please feel fee to put it in the collection. This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code!

Re: Matt's Scripts - Rand image..

2001-03-16 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
Leo Lapworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not the same as those which daveh is writting, main difference is it doesn't have configuration files or code! Ah. This is probably a good time to back out. One of the other Daves beat me to it, and far better than I would have done it and I've

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-15 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is indeed lovely. Although you don't need to do tunnelling magic: rsync -options -e ssh source-list me@myserver:/destination rsync is a wonderful beast. The -a and -z options, accompanied by --progress (if they're big files) and --delete (for

RE: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Mark Fowler
Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody You're all getting ahead of yourselves. We need to write a set of

RE: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Dave Cross
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:19:42 + (GMT), Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts

RE: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Lucy McWilliam
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mark Fowler wrote: Finding out where perl is parody Stop, stop, this script archive is not ready yet! Where are the Hello world examples? Where are the detailed instructions? And why are you actually working on these scripts yet! /parody *giggle* L. delete

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Piers Cawley
and which could then go on and upload the scripts. Ooh... You don't even have to assume working perl on their box. You stick the interrogation stuff on the 'Not Matt's scripts' website. The punter then says "I want to run these scripts on such an ISP". NMS then checks to see if it h

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Matthew Robinson
... You don't even have to assume working perl on their box. You stick the interrogation stuff on the 'Not Matt's scripts' website. The punter then says "I want to run these scripts on such an ISP". NMS then checks to see if it has information about that ISP cached, and provides the a

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Mark Fowler
(What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?) Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts anywhere. Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will be 'executed'. Typically you cannot

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Dave Cross
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:28:19 + (GMT), Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?) Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts anywhere. We _like_ servers configured like this. Especially if they've got some kind of

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Robin Szemeti
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote: (What do you mean with "not-inplace cgi"?) Some servers (like my own) are configured to allow you to run perl scripts anywhere. Some servers (especially in the paranoid ISP land) are configured to have a /cgi-bin/ where you have to put files in that will

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread David Cantrell
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:50:04AM +, Jon Eyre wrote: In my experience, virtually *all* isps/hosting providers use the 'separate cgi-bin directory' configuration. either for the security reasons outlined by evil dave ... Eh-hem. Evil Dave's server does *not* use seperate cgi-bin

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread David Cantrell
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:46:45PM +, Jon Eyre wrote: oops... Heh. Just remember, Evil Dave is the paranoid nutcase, Dave Cross is the one with the gold-plated cat. At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:05:05 +, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evil Dave's server does *not* use

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Jon Eyre
My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain in the arse will fail to work because the

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Dave Cross
At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... They won't if you

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Roger Burton West
On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp, because it's *easier*... People are lazy, and security measures which are a pain

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Mark Fowler
is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows? On Windows I use pscp which comes from the same people as putty. It works well, but it doesn't have a pretty graphical front-end. Yes there is. http://www.i-tree.org/ixplorer.htm. I suggest you peeps read

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Greg McCarroll
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp,

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Dominic Mitchell
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:55:28PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users require them, or they'll just continue using ftp,

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Mark Fowler
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:32 + (GMT), Jon Eyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My several users use scp. is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? my several users

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Roger Burton West
On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:00:22PM +, Greg McCarroll typed: * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: They won't if you stop running the ftp daemon on the server :) Rule one of security: Ensure availability for authorised users Rule zero of security: A system with no

Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)

2001-03-14 Thread Leo Lapworth
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. SCP for Windoz = http://winscp.vse.cz/eng/ SCP for Linux = well, command

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:55:28PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: I've been thinking that, while not ideal, webDAV is probably the best option here. I'm told it's a) secure-ish, and b) integrates nicely with Dreamweaver and whatever microsoft's

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Dominic Mitchell
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:57:41PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:34:32PM +, Jon Eyre typed: is there an idiot-proof graphical front-end for scp? windows clients? PuTTY. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ In case anybody hasn't

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Dominic Mitchell
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:08:03PM +, Struan Donald wrote: and people are worrying about plain scp confusing people? ssh tunneling is one of those things that appears close enough to magic that people assume it is. damn useful magic though. plus it always seems such a pain on windows

Re: Matt's Scripts (SCP)

2001-03-14 Thread Chris Devers
At 03:00 PM 14.3.2001 +, Leo Lapworth wrote: If anyone hears of a good gui SCP client for non-OSX mac's I'd really like to know (I've got users on my machine that need it!). Can Fetch do it? At a glance, I don't see anything about SCP there, but then I've only done a cursory check; it may

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread David Cantrell
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:01:17PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote: WebDAV is ok, but you'd need to run it over HTTPS to be secure. WebDAV is not OK, cos it means installing yet more stuff on the server which is simply not needed. If a user can't use scp, then I don't want that user. I mean,

Re: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Dominic Mitchell
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:13:46PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: There is a GUI front-end for pscp, available from http://www.i-tree.org/, apparently, although I haven't tried it. This is kind of flakey, and has trouble with stuff like files owned by a user or group with more than 8

  1   2   >