RE: Not Matt's Scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Cross David - dcross
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

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
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

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.

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

Re[2]: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Mike Jarvis
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

Re: Re[2]: Matt's Scripts

2001-03-14 Thread Greg McCarroll
* 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