Re: Strange Request

2001-03-18 Thread Jonathan Stowe

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

2001-03-18 Thread Jonathan Stowe

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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Cross

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

2001-03-13 Thread Greg McCarroll

* 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

2001-03-13 Thread Dean

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

2001-03-13 Thread Jonathan Peterson


 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

2001-03-13 Thread David Cantrell

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

2001-03-13 Thread Struan Donald

* 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

2001-03-13 Thread Struan Donald

* 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

2001-03-13 Thread Jonathan Peterson

 That's Selena Sol. He's almost as bad as Matt.

I thought Selena was female. Oh well.





Re: Strange Request

2001-03-13 Thread Philip Newton

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

2001-03-13 Thread Redvers Davies

 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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Hodgkinson

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

2001-03-13 Thread Robert Shiels

- 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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Hodgkinson

"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

2001-03-13 Thread Greg McCarroll

* 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

2001-03-13 Thread Mark Fowler

 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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Cross

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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Cross

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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Cross

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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Hodgkinson

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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Cross

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

2001-03-13 Thread Matthew Jones

 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

2001-03-13 Thread Robert Shiels

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

2001-03-13 Thread Dave Hodgkinson


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

2001-03-13 Thread Greg McCarroll

* 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

2001-03-13 Thread Aaron Trevena


### 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

2001-03-13 Thread Leo Lapworth

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

2001-03-13 Thread David Cantrell

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

2001-03-13 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick

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

2001-03-13 Thread David Cantrell

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

2001-03-13 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick

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

2001-03-13 Thread Philip Newton

Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
 Why is this a problem? /usr/lib/sendmail is the published 
 interface.

(As others have already written, no /usr/lib/sendmail [or /usr/lib, for that
matter] on Win2K or NT web servers.)

 /usr/lib/sendmail -t -oem
 
 is your friend (and remember to check $?)

Hm, didn't know about -oem. BTW, the Perl FAQ (`perldoc -q "send mail"`)
suggests -oi as well.

 Admittedly, this may break on any system that uses the MTA 
 which shall not be named[1]

Or places that have /usr/sbin/sendmail? Or other weird places?

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

2001-03-13 Thread David Cantrell

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

2001-03-13 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick

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

2001-03-13 Thread Redvers Davies

 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

2001-03-13 Thread Philip Newton

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

2001-03-13 Thread David H. Adler

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

2001-03-12 Thread Philip Newton

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

2001-03-12 Thread Robin Szemeti

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

2001-03-12 Thread David H. Adler

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

2001-03-12 Thread Robin Szemeti

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

2001-03-09 Thread Dean

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

2001-03-09 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick

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.