RE: Not Matt's Scripts
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 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 module and therefore sendmail wins. Dave... -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 but it needs some tightening up and peer review. Well hurry up, I'm in the middle of an argument and I want to slap some people with a this is how they _Should_ look cluestick... -- 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: 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 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. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it. -- Mae West
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
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 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 to believe what you want, but as far as I'm concerned, not expecting people to install extra CPAN modules is of overriding importance in writing replacements for Matt's scripts. Dave... The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
- 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 is of overriding importance in writing replacements for Matt's scripts. Dave... Although we have Net::SMTP installed on our servers and there is a formail program there, there is no way any member of support is going to tell an average 'my first homepage' AOL customer that they need to use a script that requires anything extra installed. They have difficulty enough telling the difference between binary and ascii mode let alone being able to handle module installation. If the script is meant to be a replacement for matts script then using Net::SMTP negates this based on the target audience for matts scripts IMHO. Will.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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. -- Robert - Original Message - From: Matthew Byng-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 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. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it. -- Mae West
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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
reason
why we couldn't use Blat too? I'm looking into it to see if I can get it
working.
ahh yes ...
trouble is .. there must be half a dozen 'popular' mailers for win32
...blat is just one of many (or so I'm told) the only thing I remember is
blat is a file based thing, you have to put your mail in a file on the
disc and then tell blat to send it, at least thats the way formmial was
using it.
I did look at the said script many moons ago
instead of
if($win32){ send_win32($mail) }
else { send_unix($mail) }
it has
sub send{
do this ...
err .. but not this bit if its unix.
oh and this bit
but add this bit for win32
and take this bit off agin
and this bit goes in for unix
and then do this if its win32
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.
/Robert
PS - has anyone done this one already on Win32, or shall I keep going.
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 reason why we couldn't use Blat too? I'm looking into it to see if I can get it working. ahh yes ... trouble is .. there must be half a dozen 'popular' mailers for win32 ...blat is just one of many (or so I'm told) the only thing I remember is blat is a file based thing, you have to put your mail in a file on the disc and then tell blat to send it, at least thats the way formmial was using it. Blat can be used the command-line way, by specifying '-' as the input file (hey - a unix convention!) The following snippet works like a dream. $mail_program='c:\winnt\system32\blat.exe'; $from_field='My Lovely Site [EMAIL PROTECTED]'; open (MAIL, |$mail_program - -t \$recipient\ -i \$from_field\ -s \$subject\); Then just print to MAIL, and close the filehandle when you're done. 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.
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
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 anywhere-near-prolific one is W3JMail, which is an absolute arse to configure, and is only used in most outfits because it plugs very well into ASP pages. All the cheap hosting companies I've ever seen who do NT and offer mail-out facilities do blat. Any other command-line mailers which exist are generally unstable, unconfigurable or downright obscure. My advice would be to configure Win32 systems to use blat out of the box, and (possibly) invite input from people who use anything different. That's the OSS way, after all!
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 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) so that it finds their mailer for them. We'd have to re-write Digest::MD5 too, so that we could compare the found file with a signature just in case someone has been messing with filenames. Wouldn't want to accidentally start Back Orifice instead of blat. Yeah, silly isn't it. That's what happens when you aim for the lowest common denominator. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our latest and greatest operating system which we couldn't be arsed to complete
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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
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 scripts ? MWF Forum (as an example) has modules in the same directory as the scripts which seem to just get useed in the usual way. Could we not ship our own version of File::Find, and have the code use it if it can't use the real File::Find because it's not installed ? OK, so it would eat up disk space but if it were clever, there would be some run once code that would figure out what's there and what isn't and tell the user which files they could safely remove. Ideally it would rewrite itself and do the deletes automatically but I suspect that clueful ISPs will have removed write permissions for the webserver to write to cgi-bin ! Just a thought. Simon.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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. Well, finally got the formmail.pl script to work on win32 with blat. Tracked my major difficulty down to a problem created by the person who ported it to windows, $CONFIG has been used instead of the correct case which is $Config. Can't imagine it's ever worked. I'll have a look at Dave's later. /Robert, needing to pretend to do some real work now!
RE: Not Matt's Scripts
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. Let's hold up as much as possible of my code to the derision of the world! Dave... -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 latest f**king perl distribution which doesn't f**cking compile on your machine! step 1: configure CPAN step 2: upgrade CPAN step 3: configure the new CPAN step 4: use CPAN yes it sucks mildly, it's still a helluva lot more convinient than doing it by hand, imo -- Richard Clamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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
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 Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
At 19:53 30/04/2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: I've got someone needing a form to mail script. Where's ours[0]? Ta, Dave [0] Oh, all right, yours since I bottled out. Current version is at http://www.dave.org.uk/scripts/notmatt/formmail.pl.txt but it needs some tightening up and peer review. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 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: Not Matt's Scripts
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. (and how do I work this out for myself) Er, download the Perl source and see if it's in there? and supported on all O.S.es so I don't have to rewrite strftime. If you have a POSIX compliant compiler/C library, it should be there. I'd say most are, nowadays. (Certainly now that Perl *requires* an ANSI C compiler to build.) 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. I don't think you can. 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: Not Matt's Scripts
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 I'm using it somewhere so it should be :) /J\
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 st nd rd),("th")x16)x2; $th[31]="st";
my @time=localtime;
print strftime("%e$th[$time[3]] %b %Y\n", @time);
%e seems to be Linux specific. %d works on both Linux and Windows.
/Robert, possibly making his first perl contribution to the list!
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 ( select 'select replace(a, CHR(88), replace(a,,)) from ( select ''X'' a from dual)' a from dual)
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 depends on the architraves." --Harl
Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 it out ;-)
I thought I would play around with Benchmark.pm, because I don't use it
nearly often enough, so I made this script:
#! /usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Benchmark;
use POSIX 'strftime';
use vars qw(@th);
@th=(qw(th st nd rd),("th")x16)x2; $th[31]="st";
sub th{(($_[0]-10-$_[0]%10)/10%10)?(qw(th st nd rd),('th')x6)[$_[0]%10]:"th"}
my $count=10;
timethese($count, {
'Array' = '{
my @time=localtime;
my $dummy = strftime("%e$th[$time[3]] %b %Y\n",
@time);
}',
'Sub' = '{
my @time=localtime;
my $th=th($time[3]);
my $dummy = strftime("%e$th %b %Y\n", @time);
}'
});
Now - I don't know if I've used this right at all - comments and criticisms
gladly accepted.
The output is:
Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of Array, Sub...
Array: 3 wallclock secs ( 3.33 usr + 0.09 sys = 3.42 CPU)
Sub: 6 wallclock secs ( 5.27 usr + 0.06 sys = 5.33 CPU)
So - Did I get this heinously wrong or is MBM's sub really a lot slower ?
Simon.
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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, 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: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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-$_[0]%10)/10%10)?(qw(th st nd rd),('th')x6)[$_[0]%10]:"th"}
Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of Array, Sub...
Array: 3 wallclock secs ( 3.33 usr + 0.09 sys = 3.42 CPU)
Sub: 6 wallclock secs ( 5.27 usr + 0.06 sys = 5.33 CPU)
So - Did I get this heinously wrong or is MBM's sub really a lot slower ?
No, you got it right. You would expect the sub version to be slower, as it
has to make a subroutine call and do some calculations every time, whereas
the array version pre-calculates everything and then just does a tonne of
comparitively inexpensive array lookups.
--
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: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 using an array is that you can pre-populate it. (also it's more concise, and I find it more comprehensible. YMMV) .robin. -- Beware. The paranoids are watching you.
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 then. Hey, that's not _fair_! The whole point of using an array is that you can pre-populate it. (also it's more concise, and I find it more comprehensible. YMMV) I agree, it's how I would have done it. I was just trying to see it really deserved the label "evil and gross hack". It seems to me that it doesn't but as you say, YMMV and I got to practice my benchmarking :-) Simon.
Re: Benchmarking [was] Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 initialisation inside the loop and see who wins then. Hey, that's not _fair_! The whole point of using an array is that you can pre-populate it. (also it's more concise, and I find it more comprehensible. YMMV) I agree, it's how I would have done it. I was just trying to see it really deserved the label "evil and gross hack". Because it was only meant to deal with things up to 31, if you try and (for some reason) try to put 32 in, you would get 32th (because it has populated the array). I don't like that kind of thing. It's a personal choice. I think the bit I objected to most was the $th[31]="st" bit. I shouldn't have put it like that, but as Robin says, TIMTOWTDI,so yeah. It seems to me that it doesn't but as you say, YMMV and I got to practice my benchmarking :-) :) I did expect it to be slower, it also copes with any number. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) Knebel's Law: It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 interested. You might want to change the content-type on that directory as I get a funny error :) Hmm... What error are you getting? Works ok for me. htmlbody bgcolor=#ff h2Script execution error/h2 pUnable to execute script due to a configuration problem. brPlease notify the webmaster of this error. pexec() returned: b13: Permission denied/b /body/html Anyhow what are we going to do about the 'C++' ones :) Ignore them. Pretend they aren't there :) Oh go one, wipes paw on table sooty style /J\
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 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 :) Hmm... What error are you getting? Works ok for me. Script execution error Unable to execute script due to a configuration problem. Please notify the webmaster of this error. exec() returned: 13: Permission denied OK. When I said "works", I hadn't actually tried to _view_ on of the scripts. I've renamed them to .pl.txt and it seems to work now. PowerHost seem to have that server configured in a really weird way - I'll get on to them later. Thanks for pointing it out. Now, do you know why [EMAIL PROTECTED] has suddenly be subscribed to this list? I keep getting everything twice? Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: Not Matt's Scripts
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 volunteering to provide replacements were as follows: Guestbook JNS Real Soon Now ... Just caught in the 'New Laptop Transition' WWWboardJNS Nearly there. I just get fucked off every time I look at the original. Counter FormmailDave C Random Image Displayer Dave C Random Link Generator Dave C Textclock Mark F Countdown Mark F Free For All Links JNS Now available as http://www.perl.gellyfish.com/source/mwffa.pl.txt Simple Search JNS Now available as http://www.perl.gellyfish.com/source/ssearch.pl.txt Textcounter Dave C HTTP Cookie Library SSI Random Image Generator Dave C Random Text Dave C Animation So it looks like we've got most of then sewn up. Anyone else want to report on progress or grab one of the outstanding ones to do? Anyhow what are we going to do about the 'C++' ones :) /J\
Re[2]: Matt's Scripts
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 similar policy. If you're too clueless to know the differance between various prescription drugs, their proper dosages and interactions, well, you're just too stupid to live. She'll be doing the world a great service by helping eliminate all those losers who couldn't make it through eight years of uni. And don't even get her started on child proof caps. -- mike
Re: Re[2]: Matt's Scripts
* 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
