Re: spam (was: re: code duplication)

leo_...@volny.cz writes: > > Lesson: never configure a public machine to misbehave. People might be > trying to get work done and take offense if they're stopped in that rude > manner (just a huge delay, 'permission denied' and closing the connection > would've IMO certainly sufficed). Excuse me,

fu: spam (was: re: code duplication)

I wrote: > Look at the uproar it created here... Okay *sigh*, I can see how this can be misinterpreted; what I meant was that someone offended (in this case somewhat unwittingly) created the uproar, specifically, me. I'm never too good to shoot flak at myself, don't worry...

spam (was: re: code duplication)

Hi, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote: > Just a tip from an outsider. Those are always more than welcome :) > I would suggest you show a little sympathy for those who are getting > spammed by useless Nigerian scammers, cryptovirus authors, and the > like, claiming to be some kind of "Head of

Re: code duplication

Just a tip from an outsider. I would suggest you show a little sympathy for those who are getting spammed by useless Nigerian scammers, cryptovirus authors, and the like, claiming to be some kind of "Head of Financial Business Management Department Business Managing Director" or some other sort

re: code duplication

Hi, dera...@openbsd.org wrote: > Then please demonstrate your sensitivity by stopping use of the > OpenBSD project's mailing lists. Oh? Who's the thin-skinned one, now? > Obviously what I'm saying isn't a personal insult. I didn't even know his name, still don't know his e-mail addr, and

Re: re: code duplication

> > P.S. > > There is no good reason to insult Todd > > I don't know him, I might've heard of him once. Needless to say, the > insult obviously wasn't personal. > > > for running spamd(8), which > > is a standard tool and less annoying than some others. > > How do you find 'Hello, spam sender.

re: code duplication

Hi, schwa...@usta.de wrote: > there isn't the one answer that fits all situations. > > The goal in this respect is simplicity and maintainability. Yup. > Often, it is simpler to maintain two copies of similar code. > For example, the libc and kernel implementations of malloc(3) > and malloc(9)

Re: code duplication

Hi, there isn't the one answer that fits all situations. The goal in this respect is simplicity and maintainability. Often, it is simpler to maintain two copies of similar code. For example, the libc and kernel implementations of malloc(3) and malloc(9) are distinct. Reacharound between kernel

RE: code duplication

Hi, rauldmil...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 4:36 AM, wrote: >> The greater the body of code is, the smaller our understanding, or at >> least our ability to grok the code. >> >> Even in the UNIX world, 'duckspeak' code -- just doing what seems right >> without

FU: RE: code duplication

Sorry for the tyop in the subject line, boy will I be glad to get rid of this $#@$%&! webmail poop that doesn't know how to send a proper reply... Of course, to add insult to injury, I can't manually send the messages either, as the openbsd.org mail swerver decides, on connection, that I'm