I just tested dtml-boundary in the loop below and it fails.
Is this feature or bug?
Should dtml-boundary be altered to be a block-tag?
-Trevor
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Trevor Toenjes
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:01 PM
To: Maik
I like the idea of adding cookie auth to the API. The user product choices
are convoluted and I think the community would benefit from adding standard
capability to the core.
Adding to that...
my priority would be to extend acl_users folder to allow for built-in
storage of additional user proper
We are considering upgrading from 2.4.0 to 2.5.0. Does the same issue apply
to EnhancedVHM?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Jesus Cea Avion
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Zope-dev] Zope
BRILLIANT!! One headache fixed.
Martijn "Analgesic" Pieters, you are my hero for the day.
Thank you.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Martijn Pieters
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:12 PM
> To: Joachim Werner
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTE
I am confused? is this a zope-dev or zope-web topic?
Is the goal to provide this for new.zope.org to share with the community via
XML-RPC and release as a Zope product?
Either way we need a component architecture plus identifying all the
existing product snippets or objects that could be used. R
This proposal is dead-on to make the errors more accessible and
customizable. This is the solution to some of my previous error_message
threads.
How do we move this from proposal to project?
Why not start with a less ambitious first phase of opening up Exceptions
control as a "product". How ab
I am hardly qualified to participate in zope-dev issues, but feel compelled
to comment on the "tools thread". I find it amusing with the wealth of IT
experience involved that the group doesnt just take existing Zope code and
polish off an uber-Product to handle everything. Somebody with project
I like this point. SiteAccess should kick an error if you do something
stupid, but not lock you out of the ZMI.
Maybe, "authenticated" gets a 'manage' wrapper(header/footer) around the
AccessRule
...the AccessRule
-Trevor
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[E
> What do you want to happen during traversal?
Evan's Embedded Session Values is his suggested use of SiteAccess2
http://www.zope.org/Members/4am/SiteAccess2/otheruse
I simply need to add a (writing to a database) after a
valid SessionID is set.
However, 'smallscript' cannot be executed from the
I just had a thread about SiteAccess that resulted with Dieter suggesting I
rewrite SiteAccess as an External Method to get around security limitations.
>>The security context is set after URL traversal.
>>At least, it is not easy to set it before.
This prevents the manipulation of session variabl
> Apparently _some_ of this is possible. A couple of weeks ago, I was
> facing a similar situation, and found a site on the web that would do
> validation of email addresses by (IIRC) sending a mailto header to the
> mail domain and looking at the response. It did not work for all
> domains, not
I like the idea of having this capability.
Having the option to integrate it into sendmail or as a standalone scrubber
would be ideal. Could this become a product?
Next week I get a new list of 500 emails that has never been tested. I would
like to do an SMTP handshake(without sending) to verify
I wanted to throw 2 cents in to this thread from my previous
problems/questions about error_message.
I think they are slightly related.
Maybe someone can filter my newbie-isms and use some of this in the Dogbowl.
I would like to have more control over the standard_error_message
auto-rendering of e
13 matches
Mail list logo
