RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

Thanks for that, Ed. Again, I appreciate that you're opening yourself to some 
ridicule for defending my "style". :-)

You know, I had a debate about this with someone recently on another list. He 
felt I was an arrogant windbag. I replied that many people seemed to appreciate 
my contributions, and often said so. 

I proposed that perhaps I should create a poll (maybe using the new Adobe Forms 
Central) to get a pulse across the many lists I'm on to see what people think. 

Each side thinks they're right, of course. The question (to me) seems to be 
which is more representative. :-) If it's really only a few who hold me in such 
ill regard, perhaps they'd chill a little when I seem to get them so fired up. 
Of course, there are two issues there: arrogance, and verbosity. I'm inclined 
to think that some who see one problem see both. Another good reason for a 
poll, to know for sure. :-)

/charlie


> -Original Message-
> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of
> szwedo...@epamail.epa.gov
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:38 PM
> To: discussion@acfug.org
> Subject: RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
> statements
> 
> I think that you use exactly as many words as needed. Your emails are
> (in MY opinion) always clear and never verbose.
> 
> ed




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Szwedo . Ed]

I think that you use exactly as many words as needed. Your emails are
(in MY opinion) always clear and never verbose.

ed

__
Ed Szwedo
Web Development Team Lead
ECS Team - ITS-EPA II Contractor

109 TW Alexander Drive, Building NCC, Mail Drop N176-05, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711
Information Technology Infrastructure Solutions | Office: (919)541-3955
| Fax: (919)541-3641 | szwedo...@epa.gov | www.ecs-federal.com



From:   "Charlie Arehart" 
To: 
Date:   08/25/2011 01:33 PM
Subject:    RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
    statements
Sent by:ad...@acfug.org



Sure, many of us feel that way. Sadly, many do not. That said, I realize
you may mean that I or others still use more "words than necessary". One
man's junk is another man's treasure, I guess. :-)

It seems a constant tension (in my mind) on lists. Perhaps helpful to
bring it up like this every once in a while, so that people on both
sides realize that theirs is not the only perspective on the matter. :-)


I don't know that there's any solution. More of a coke/pepsi,
republican/democrat, team edward/team jacob sort of thing. :-)

/charlie

PS For those perhaps more of my age (49) who don't get the last
reference, it's from the Twilight movie series.

> -Original Message-
> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of
> szwedo...@epamail.epa.gov
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:18 PM
> To: discussion@acfug.org
> Subject: RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
> statements
>
> I also favor using as many words as necessary to communicate clearly.
> There really is no reason to compromise clarity for brevity's sake.
My
> keyboard produces just as many words as I need, neither more nor less.
>
> ed
>
> __
> Ed Szwedo
> Web Development Team Lead
> ECS Team - ITS-EPA II Contractor
>
> 109 TW Alexander Drive, Building NCC, Mail Drop N176-05, Research
> Triangle Park, NC 27711
> Information Technology Infrastructure Solutions | Office:
(919)541-3955
> | Fax: (919)541-3641 | szwedo...@epa.gov | www.ecs-federal.com
>
>
> From:          "Charlie Arehart" 
> To:    
> Date:  08/25/2011 01:01 PM
> Subject:   RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
> statements
> Sent by:   ad...@acfug.org
>
> Sadly, you and I are a dying breed, it seems. :-) There’s a definite
> subset of the culture who decidedly do NOT like any email longer than
a
> couple of sentences—even if it means sacrificing clarity for brevity.
>
> Twitter has only exacerbated the problem by catering to that whim.
It’s
> clearly a cultural shift that’s been at play for some time. I write
> emails like people of old wrote letters. Sadly, people don’t do that
> anymore. And sadly, those of this ilk aren’t vocal about it: they just
> won’t read an email that’s “too long” in their opinion, yet they’ll
> respond in a thread without acknowledging that, which can cause more
> confusion.
>
> Oh well, c’est la vie. :-) As you say, I don’t stop. Some appreciate
it
> (whether in email, blog entries, and so on), and I write for them. :-)
> Thanks for the encouragement, though others may hold it against you!
>
> /charlie




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

Sure, an IN clause would work, if the tests were for exact matches. I
suspected that the user-agents being tested were long and the words within
them to be tested were a subset. That's what makes it a challenge. Of
course, then one could argue that a SQL LIKE clause might work, but of
course those come with a performance cost. In a QofQ it may not be quite so
bad, if the resultset is small. Let's see if that proves helpful for
Derrick.

 

/charlie

 

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ross
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:28 PM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

 

I was thinking about this... you could create a temp query and use an IN
clause (with a QoQ). Would be a lot cleaner than this...

 




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

It might seem Clint is joking, but while I have no experience in mind from him 
to know for sure, I think he’s being totally serious, which would be showing 
that opposite side I’ve been alluding to. 

That said, sorry, I just don’t see myself going to writing emails as bullet 
points. And on a serious note, fat adds flavor to a meal. In fact, you can’t 
live without it, at least in moderation. Less fat is generally a goal, sure. 
:-) I try, in eating and writing. As for being old school, you got me there, 
and that’s the crux of my point. :-)

 

/charlie

 

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Clint Willard
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:25 PM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

 

Long as we're off topic.. 

*   No time for long emails
*   More than meat of the matter is fat
*   I love bullet points

Sentences and paragraphs are so old school. We don't need no stinkin grammar 
neither.

 

Clint 

 




-

To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 

http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform



For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists

Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/

List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com

-

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

Sure, many of us feel that way. Sadly, many do not. That said, I realize you 
may mean that I or others still use more "words than necessary". One man's junk 
is another man's treasure, I guess. :-)

It seems a constant tension (in my mind) on lists. Perhaps helpful to bring it 
up like this every once in a while, so that people on both sides realize that 
theirs is not the only perspective on the matter. :-) 

I don't know that there's any solution. More of a coke/pepsi, 
republican/democrat, team edward/team jacob sort of thing. :-) 

/charlie

PS For those perhaps more of my age (49) who don't get the last reference, it's 
from the Twilight movie series.

> -Original Message-
> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of
> szwedo...@epamail.epa.gov
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:18 PM
> To: discussion@acfug.org
> Subject: RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
> statements
> 
> I also favor using as many words as necessary to communicate clearly.
> There really is no reason to compromise clarity for brevity's sake.  My
> keyboard produces just as many words as I need, neither more nor less.
> 
> ed
> 
> __
> Ed Szwedo
> Web Development Team Lead
> ECS Team - ITS-EPA II Contractor
> 
> 109 TW Alexander Drive, Building NCC, Mail Drop N176-05, Research
> Triangle Park, NC 27711
> Information Technology Infrastructure Solutions | Office: (919)541-3955
> | Fax: (919)541-3641 | szwedo...@epa.gov | www.ecs-federal.com
> 
> 
> From: "Charlie Arehart" 
> To:   
> Date: 08/25/2011 01:01 PM
> Subject:  RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
> statements
> Sent by:  ad...@acfug.org 
> 
> Sadly, you and I are a dying breed, it seems. :-) There’s a definite
> subset of the culture who decidedly do NOT like any email longer than a
> couple of sentences—even if it means sacrificing clarity for brevity.
> 
> Twitter has only exacerbated the problem by catering to that whim. It’s
> clearly a cultural shift that’s been at play for some time. I write
> emails like people of old wrote letters. Sadly, people don’t do that
> anymore. And sadly, those of this ilk aren’t vocal about it: they just
> won’t read an email that’s “too long” in their opinion, yet they’ll
> respond in a thread without acknowledging that, which can cause more
> confusion.
> 
> Oh well, c’est la vie. :-) As you say, I don’t stop. Some appreciate it
> (whether in email, blog entries, and so on), and I write for them. :-)
> Thanks for the encouragement, though others may hold it against you!
> 
> /charlie




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Steve Ross]

I was thinking about this... you could create a temp query and use an IN
clause (with a QoQ). Would be a lot cleaner than this...

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Clint Willard  wrote:

> Long as we're off topic..
>
>- No time for long emails
>- More than meat of the matter is fat
>- I love bullet points
>
> Sentences and paragraphs are so old school. We don't need no
> stinkin grammar neither.
>
> *Clint *
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM,  wrote:
>
>> I also favor using as many words as necessary to communicate clearly.
>> There really is no reason to compromise clarity for brevity's sake.  My
>> keyboard produces just as many words as I need, neither more nor less.
>>
>> ed
>>
>> __
>> Ed Szwedo
>> Web Development Team Lead
>> ECS Team - ITS-EPA II Contractor
>>
>> 109 TW Alexander Drive, Building NCC, Mail Drop N176-05, Research
>> Triangle Park, NC 27711
>> Information Technology Infrastructure Solutions | Office: (919)541-3955
>> | Fax: (919)541-3641 | szwedo...@epa.gov | www.ecs-federal.com
>>
>>
>>
>> From:   "Charlie Arehart" 
>> To: 
>> Date:   08/25/2011 01:01 PM
>> Subject:RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
>>statements
>> Sent by:ad...@acfug.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Sadly, you and I are a dying breed, it seems. :-) There’s a definite
>> subset of the culture who decidedly do NOT like any email longer than a
>> couple of sentences—even if it means sacrificing clarity for brevity.
>>
>> Twitter has only exacerbated the problem by catering to that whim. It’s
>> clearly a cultural shift that’s been at play for some time. I write
>> emails like people of old wrote letters. Sadly, people don’t do that
>> anymore. And sadly, those of this ilk aren’t vocal about it: they just
>> won’t read an email that’s “too long” in their opinion, yet they’ll
>> respond in a thread without acknowledging that, which can cause more
>> confusion.
>>
>> Oh well, c’est la vie. :-) As you say, I don’t stop. Some appreciate it
>> (whether in email, blog entries, and so on), and I write for them. :-)
>> Thanks for the encouragement, though others may hold it against you!
>>
>> /charlie
>>
>> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick
>> Peavy
>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:52 AM
>> To: discussion@acfug.org
>> Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements
>>
>> Well, don't stop. I prefer content over confusion (short).
>>
>> __
>> Derrick Peavy
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Charlie Arehart wrote:
>>
>> Me and my “long” emails, I guess. ;-}
>>
>> /charlie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
>> http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform
>>
>> For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
>> Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
>> List hosted by FusionLink
>> -
>>
>>
>


-- 
Steve Ross
web application & interface developer
http://blog.stevensross.com
[mobile] (912) 344-8113
[ AIM / Yahoo! : zeriumsteven ] [googleTalk : nowhiding ]

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Clint Willard]

Long as we're off topic..

   - No time for long emails
   - More than meat of the matter is fat
   - I love bullet points

Sentences and paragraphs are so old school. We don't need no
stinkin grammar neither.

*Clint *



On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM,  wrote:

> I also favor using as many words as necessary to communicate clearly.
> There really is no reason to compromise clarity for brevity's sake.  My
> keyboard produces just as many words as I need, neither more nor less.
>
> ed
>
> __
> Ed Szwedo
> Web Development Team Lead
> ECS Team - ITS-EPA II Contractor
>
> 109 TW Alexander Drive, Building NCC, Mail Drop N176-05, Research
> Triangle Park, NC 27711
> Information Technology Infrastructure Solutions | Office: (919)541-3955
> | Fax: (919)541-3641 | szwedo...@epa.gov | www.ecs-federal.com
>
>
>
> From:   "Charlie Arehart" 
> To: 
> Date:   08/25/2011 01:01 PM
> Subject:RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
>statements
> Sent by:ad...@acfug.org
>
>
>
> Sadly, you and I are a dying breed, it seems. :-) There’s a definite
> subset of the culture who decidedly do NOT like any email longer than a
> couple of sentences—even if it means sacrificing clarity for brevity.
>
> Twitter has only exacerbated the problem by catering to that whim. It’s
> clearly a cultural shift that’s been at play for some time. I write
> emails like people of old wrote letters. Sadly, people don’t do that
> anymore. And sadly, those of this ilk aren’t vocal about it: they just
> won’t read an email that’s “too long” in their opinion, yet they’ll
> respond in a thread without acknowledging that, which can cause more
> confusion.
>
> Oh well, c’est la vie. :-) As you say, I don’t stop. Some appreciate it
> (whether in email, blog entries, and so on), and I write for them. :-)
> Thanks for the encouragement, though others may hold it against you!
>
> /charlie
>
> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick
> Peavy
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:52 AM
> To: discussion@acfug.org
> Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements
>
> Well, don't stop. I prefer content over confusion (short).
>
> __
> Derrick Peavy
>
> On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Charlie Arehart wrote:
>
> Me and my “long” emails, I guess. ;-}
>
> /charlie
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
> http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform
>
> For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
> Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
> List hosted by FusionLink
> -
>
>

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Dan Kaufman]

And in the words as practiced by another genius:

"Make everything as simple as possible,
but no simpler."

Albert Einstein



-Original Message-
From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of 
szwedo...@epamail.epa.gov
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:18 AM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

I also favor using as many words as necessary to communicate clearly.
There really is no reason to compromise clarity for brevity's sake.  My
keyboard produces just as many words as I need, neither more nor less.

ed

__
Ed Szwedo
Web Development Team Lead
ECS Team - ITS-EPA II Contractor

109 TW Alexander Drive, Building NCC, Mail Drop N176-05, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711
Information Technology Infrastructure Solutions | Office: (919)541-3955
| Fax: (919)541-3641 | szwedo...@epa.gov | www.ecs-federal.com



From:   "Charlie Arehart" 
To: 
Date:   08/25/2011 01:01 PM
Subject:    RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
statements
Sent by:ad...@acfug.org



Sadly, you and I are a dying breed, it seems. :-) There’s a definite
subset of the culture who decidedly do NOT like any email longer than a
couple of sentences—even if it means sacrificing clarity for brevity.

Twitter has only exacerbated the problem by catering to that whim. It’s
clearly a cultural shift that’s been at play for some time. I write
emails like people of old wrote letters. Sadly, people don’t do that
anymore. And sadly, those of this ilk aren’t vocal about it: they just
won’t read an email that’s “too long” in their opinion, yet they’ll
respond in a thread without acknowledging that, which can cause more
confusion.

Oh well, c’est la vie. :-) As you say, I don’t stop. Some appreciate it
(whether in email, blog entries, and so on), and I write for them. :-)
Thanks for the encouragement, though others may hold it against you!

/charlie

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick
Peavy
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:52 AM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

Well, don't stop. I prefer content over confusion (short).

__
Derrick Peavy

On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Charlie Arehart wrote:

Me and my “long” emails, I guess. ;-}

/charlie




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by FusionLink
-

N�ry���j�q�



-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Szwedo . Ed]

I also favor using as many words as necessary to communicate clearly.
There really is no reason to compromise clarity for brevity's sake.  My
keyboard produces just as many words as I need, neither more nor less.

ed

__
Ed Szwedo
Web Development Team Lead
ECS Team - ITS-EPA II Contractor

109 TW Alexander Drive, Building NCC, Mail Drop N176-05, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711
Information Technology Infrastructure Solutions | Office: (919)541-3955
| Fax: (919)541-3641 | szwedo...@epa.gov | www.ecs-federal.com



From:   "Charlie Arehart" 
To: 
Date:   08/25/2011 01:01 PM
Subject:    RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF
    statements
Sent by:ad...@acfug.org



Sadly, you and I are a dying breed, it seems. :-) There’s a definite
subset of the culture who decidedly do NOT like any email longer than a
couple of sentences—even if it means sacrificing clarity for brevity.

Twitter has only exacerbated the problem by catering to that whim. It’s
clearly a cultural shift that’s been at play for some time. I write
emails like people of old wrote letters. Sadly, people don’t do that
anymore. And sadly, those of this ilk aren’t vocal about it: they just
won’t read an email that’s “too long” in their opinion, yet they’ll
respond in a thread without acknowledging that, which can cause more
confusion.

Oh well, c’est la vie. :-) As you say, I don’t stop. Some appreciate it
(whether in email, blog entries, and so on), and I write for them. :-)
Thanks for the encouragement, though others may hold it against you!

/charlie

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick
Peavy
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:52 AM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

Well, don't stop. I prefer content over confusion (short).

__
Derrick Peavy

On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Charlie Arehart wrote:

Me and my “long” emails, I guess. ;-}

/charlie




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by FusionLink
-

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

Sadly, you and I are a dying breed, it seems. :-) There's a definite subset
of the culture who decidedly do NOT like any email longer than a couple of
sentences-even if it means sacrificing clarity for brevity. 

Twitter has only exacerbated the problem by catering to that whim. It's
clearly a cultural shift that's been at play for some time. I write emails
like people of old wrote letters. Sadly, people don't do that anymore. And
sadly, those of this ilk aren't vocal about it: they just won't read an
email that's "too long" in their opinion, yet they'll respond in a thread
without acknowledging that, which can cause more confusion. 

Oh well, c'est la vie. :-) As you say, I don't stop. Some appreciate it
(whether in email, blog entries, and so on), and I write for them. :-)
Thanks for the encouragement, though others may hold it against you!

/charlie

 

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick Peavy
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:52 AM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

 

Well, don't stop. I prefer content over confusion (short).


__

Derrick Peavy

 

On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Charlie Arehart wrote:



Me and my "long" emails, I guess. ;-}

 

/charlie

 




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Derrick Peavy]

Well, don't stop. I prefer content over confusion (short).

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
_



On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Charlie Arehart wrote:

> Me and my “long” emails, I guess. ;-}
>  
> /charlie
>  
> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick Peavy
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:12 AM
> To: discussion@acfug.org
> Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements
>  
> Charlie:
>  
> For whatever reason, my eye missed the first link to the UDF and I clicked 
> the cf411.com link. Going back and looking at it now.
> __
> Derrick Peavy
>  
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Charlie Arehart wrote:
> 
> You don’t really mean the code looks like that (where the #searchterm# is 
> repeated), do you? Because that doesn’t seem to make sense. Maybe it was 
> pseudo code and you left something out.
> 
> But I will say this: I wrote a UDF (posted at cflib and since tweaked by 
> others) that may help you: 
> http://www.cflib.org/index.cfm?event=page.udfbyid&udfid=1908  It’s not long 
> or complicated, but it solves what was for me a problem very similar to 
> yours, and it surprised me (as it may you) that CFML didn’t make it easier. 
> Check it out. If nothing else, it may give you an idea to consider in a 
> variation for your own need.
> 
> All that said, I will note as well that there are other solutions out there 
> for the common problem of handling spiders and bots. Besides the link that 
> Ajas offered, consider also my tools of that sort at 
> http://www.cf411.com/injectprotect. While those focus on sql injection 
> protection (at various levels up/down the stack from CFML to hardware), some 
> of them also offer protection for spiders.
>  
> /charlie
>  
> 
> - 
> To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
> http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform 
> 
> For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists 
> Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ 
> List hosted by FusionLink 
> -

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

Me and my "long" emails, I guess. ;-}

 

/charlie

 

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick Peavy
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:12 AM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

 

Charlie:

 

For whatever reason, my eye missed the first link to the UDF and I clicked
the cf411.com link. Going back and looking at it now.

__

Derrick Peavy

 

On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Charlie Arehart wrote:



You don't really mean the code looks like that (where the #searchterm# is
repeated), do you? Because that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it was
pseudo code and you left something out.

But I will say this: I wrote a UDF (posted at cflib and since tweaked by
others) that may help you: http://www.cflib.org/index.cfm?event=page.udfbyid
<http://www.cflib.org/index.cfm?event=page.udfbyid&udfid=1908> &udfid=1908
It's not long or complicated, but it solves what was for me a problem very
similar to yours, and it surprised me (as it may you) that CFML didn't make
it easier. Check it out. If nothing else, it may give you an idea to
consider in a variation for your own need.

All that said, I will note as well that there are other solutions out there
for the common problem of handling spiders and bots. Besides the link that
Ajas offered, consider also my tools of that sort at
http://www.cf411.com/injectprotect. While those focus on sql injection
protection (at various levels up/down the stack from CFML to hardware), some
of them also offer protection for spiders.

 

/charlie

 




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Derrick Peavy]

Charlie:

For whatever reason, my eye missed the first link to the UDF and I clicked the 
cf411.com link. Going back and looking at it now.

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
_



On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Charlie Arehart wrote:

> You don’t really mean the code looks like that (where the #searchterm# is 
> repeated), do you? Because that doesn’t seem to make sense. Maybe it was 
> pseudo code and you left something out.
> 
> But I will say this: I wrote a UDF (posted at cflib and since tweaked by 
> others) that may help you: 
> http://www.cflib.org/index.cfm?event=page.udfbyid&udfid=1908  It’s not long 
> or complicated, but it solves what was for me a problem very similar to 
> yours, and it surprised me (as it may you) that CFML didn’t make it easier. 
> Check it out. If nothing else, it may give you an idea to consider in a 
> variation for your own need.
> 
> All that said, I will note as well that there are other solutions out there 
> for the common problem of handling spiders and bots. Besides the link that 
> Ajas offered, consider also my tools of that sort at 
> http://www.cf411.com/injectprotect. While those focus on sql injection 
> protection (at various levels up/down the stack from CFML to hardware), some 
> of them also offer protection for spiders.
>  
> /charlie
>  
> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick Peavy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:06 PM
> To: discussion@acfug.org
> Subject: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements
>  
> Looking for a clever solution to this problem.
>  
> I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious 
> user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long. 
>  
> One solution could be:
>  
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and so 
> on, 50 times.
>  
> Another solution could be:
>   do 
> something and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.
>  
> What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal 
> processing? 
>  
> Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB. 
> I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a 
> difference, but it just seems rather crude. 
> 
> __
> Derrick Peavy
> derr...@derrickpeavy.com
> 404-786-5036
>  
> “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
> "In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
> _
>  
>  
>  
> 
> - 
> To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
> http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform 
> 
> For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists 
> Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ 
> List hosted by FusionLink 
> -

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Cameron Childress]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:

> Sure.  I'd probably actually use it to ass a URL param "badbot=true" or
> something CF could consume.  Again though, may be a lot of wasted energy for
> a relatively minor reward.
>

ADD - to ADD a URL param.

...where's that coffee...

-Cameron

-- 
Cameron Childress
--
p:   678.637.5072
im: cameroncf
facebook  |
twitter |
google+ 

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

As Cam has noted, the problem with this function is that it does only an exact 
match. That’s why I created the function I provided, to solve just this problem 
(and I do wish Adobe would add something like it themselves). But I appreciate 
others noting that you could also solve this specific problem outside of CF, 
with some benefit, which is why I pointed to the CF411 list of alternatives.

/charlie

 

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Clint Willard
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:22 AM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

 

Quick glance I'd say listFindNoCase(searchTermList,cgi.http_user_agent). Put 
the search terms in a list to find.




Clint Willard 

 




-

To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 

http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform



For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists

Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/

List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com

-

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Cameron Childress]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Mark Fennell  wrote:

>  Just to clarify... .htaccess can also redirect and not just block content.
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_rewrite.html
> It could be used to block or just redirect bad guys to a logging page,
> suspected bad guys to a limited site index and all others to your regular
> site.
> That's all. I'll shut up about apache now. :)
>

Sure.  I'd probably actually use it to ass a URL param "badbot=true" or
something CF could consume.  Again though, may be a lot of wasted energy for
a relatively minor reward.

But then, we are all tinkerers.

-Cameron

-- 
Cameron Childress
--
p:   678.637.5072
im: cameroncf
facebook  |
twitter |
google+ 

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Mark Fennell]

Just to clarify... .htaccess can also redirect and not just block content.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_rewrite.html
It could be used to block or just redirect bad guys to a logging page, 
suspected bad guys to a limited site index and all others to your 
regular site.

That's all. I'll shut up about apache now. :)
mf


On 8/25/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Clint Willard > wrote:


Quick glance I'd say
listFindNoCase(searchTermList,cgi.http_user_agent). Put the search
terms in a list to find.


This will only work if the entire exact case-less user agent matches 
an item in the list.  I don't think it will solve Derrick's 
problem. listFindNoCase('badbot version 
30','badbot,jokerbot,sillybot') will return false.


In a perfect world, I second Mark's suggestion of .htaccess. 
 The further up the stack you can move this, the better.  Move it all 
the way to the firewall if you can.  Takes load off the CF engine. 
 I'm not sure that works for you either though, since you aren't 
blocking them, sounds like you are just modifying the session timeouts 
and such on those requests.


I think looping over the values in CF is probably your best option. 
 Looping over a list, or converting that list to an Array and caching 
the array might be slightly faster.  I wouldn't be too worried about 
speed unless it's deemed a problem.  Almost certainly there is another 
bottleneck worth fretting over more than the 10ms a list loop might be 
adding to each request.


List loops do get increasingly slower the longer they get because of 
the way CF parses lists though, So keep it in the back of your mind 
for a future optimization.  You know, like when they list reaches a 
few hundred items, or you are getting a billion pageviews a day.


I remember Hal Helms saying the three laws of optimization during an 
ACFUG meeting years ago:


1) Don't optimize yet
2) Don't optimize yet
3) Don't optimize yet

-Cameron

--
Cameron Childress
--
p:   678.637.5072
im: cameroncf
facebook  | twitter 
 | google+ 






--

mark fennell
athens regional medical center
athens, ga


--
This email is intended only for the named recipient(s).  It may contain 
information that is proprietary, confidential or otherwise prohibited from 
disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to 
read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it.  If 
you have received this message in error, please reply immediately by email or 
telephone me at 706-475-4357 and delete all copies of the message. Furthermore, 
the opinions and thoughts expressed herein do NOT represent the policies or 
opinions of Athens Regional Health Services, Inc. (ARHS). ARHS is NOT 
responsible for the thoughts and opinions expressed in this communication.
--




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform


For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Cameron Childress]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Clint Willard  wrote:

> Quick glance I'd say listFindNoCase(searchTermList,cgi.http_user_agent).
> Put the search terms in a list to find.
>

This will only work if the entire exact case-less user agent matches an item
in the list.  I don't think it will solve Derrick's
problem. listFindNoCase('badbot version 30','badbot,jokerbot,sillybot') will
return false.

In a perfect world, I second Mark's suggestion of .htaccess.  The further up
the stack you can move this, the better.  Move it all the way to the
firewall if you can.  Takes load off the CF engine.  I'm not sure that works
for you either though, since you aren't blocking them, sounds like you are
just modifying the session timeouts and such on those requests.

I think looping over the values in CF is probably your best option.  Looping
over a list, or converting that list to an Array and caching the array might
be slightly faster.  I wouldn't be too worried about speed unless it's
deemed a problem.  Almost certainly there is another bottleneck worth
fretting over more than the 10ms a list loop might be adding to each
request.

List loops do get increasingly slower the longer they get because of the way
CF parses lists though, So keep it in the back of your mind for a future
optimization.  You know, like when they list reaches a few hundred items, or
you are getting a billion pageviews a day.

I remember Hal Helms saying the three laws of optimization during an ACFUG
meeting years ago:

1) Don't optimize yet
2) Don't optimize yet
3) Don't optimize yet

-Cameron

-- 
Cameron Childress
--
p:   678.637.5072
im: cameroncf
facebook  |
twitter |
google+ 

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Frank Moorman]

  
  
First, I like Charlie's function, its simple and it looks like it
would work well.

However, if you are looking for alternatives, you can always use a
regular _expression_.



There is plenty of information on regular expressions all over the
web if you want to be more creative, but essentially, you can put
all your choices in one set of enclosing parens with a "|" as an OR
separator. You can use "^" or "$" to only check at the begining or
end of a string. 

For example we can do this...




This will find badterm3 anywhere within the string, badterm2 only
when it starts the string, badterm1 only when it ends the string,
and badterm4 only when it is the entire string.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, there are many, many more
options for regular expressions. Once you start using them, you will
wonder how you managed without them. In addition, regular
expressions can be used in _javascript_, Oracle, MySQL, perl, and the
majority of modern programming languages.



On 08/25/2011 09:22 AM, Clint Willard wrote:

  Quick glance I'd say
listFindNoCase(searchTermList,cgi.http_user_agent). Put the
search terms in a list to find.
  
  
  Clint Willard

Senior ColdFusion Programmer Analyst
  clint...@gmail.com
  h) 770-965-6074
  
  m) 706-714-5502

  
  
  
  On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick
Peavy 
wrote:

  Looking for a clever
solution to this problem.


I have some code on a site that checks for known
  spiders/bots and malicious user agents.   The list of
  "known" is baout 50 or so long. 


One solution could be:



(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 

(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 

(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
  ... etc and so on, 50 times.


Another solution could be:
 do
  something and repeat that complete CFIF 50
  times.


What is a creative way to solve this without so many
  IF's and minimal processing? 


Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based
  or pulled from a DB. I've done it both ways and I have
  used both solutions above. Don't see a difference, but it
  just seems rather crude. 

  

  

  

  

  


  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
__
  Derrick
  Peavy
  derr...@derrickpeavy.com
  404-786-5036
  
  
  
  
  
  
  “Innovation
  distinguishes
  between a
  leader and a
  f

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Mark Fennell]

Depending on how long the list grows, you might see some performance 
benefits in splitting your list so that you only search a subset of the 
whole list each time. Maybe something like a list of names that contain 
the letters "bot", other lists for names containing the word "spider" or 
"crawler" or "cheapcasinocash." That way your app won't have to search 
the entire list to find a match, but would only have to search a subset 
of the list.


Ultimately though, I'd look at a .htaccess solution to redirect the bad 
guys to a log file and a get lost sign while letting others through to 
be logged.


There might also be a performance gain if the list(s) is stored as an 
application variable so that it's always in memory and readily 
available. I'm not sure about that. I hope a guru will correct me if I'm 
wrong...

mf


On 8/25/2011 9:45 AM, Derrick Peavy wrote:

Aggh.  Of course!!!

Why didn't I think of that? I seem to constantly forget about 
listFindNoCase.


Thank you! Simplicity is best IMO.

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com 
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
_



On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Clint Willard wrote:

Quick glance I'd say 
listFindNoCase(searchTermList,cgi.http_user_agent). Put the search 
terms in a list to find.


*Clint Willard *
Senior ColdFusion Programmer Analyst
clint...@gmail.com 
h) 770-965-6074
m) 706-714-5502



On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick Peavy 
mailto:derr...@derrickpeavy.com>> wrote:


Looking for a clever solution to this problem.

I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and
malicious user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long.

One solution could be:

(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and
so on, 50 times.

Another solution could be:
do
something and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.

What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and
minimal processing?

Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled
from a DB. I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions
above. Don't see a difference, but it just seems rather crude.

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com 
404-786-5036 

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” -
Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth
Galbraith
_








--

mark fennell
athens regional medical center
athens, ga


--
This email is intended only for the named recipient(s).  It may contain 
information that is proprietary, confidential or otherwise prohibited from 
disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to 
read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it.  If 
you have received this message in error, please reply immediately by email or 
telephone me at 706-475-4357 and delete all copies of the message. Furthermore, 
the opinions and thoughts expressed herein do NOT represent the policies or 
opinions of Athens Regional Health Services, Inc. (ARHS). ARHS is NOT 
responsible for the thoughts and opinions expressed in this communication.
--




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform


For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Derrick Peavy]

Aggh.  Of course!!!

Why didn't I think of that? I seem to constantly forget about listFindNoCase. 

Thank you! Simplicity is best IMO. 

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
_



On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Clint Willard wrote:

> Quick glance I'd say listFindNoCase(searchTermList,cgi.http_user_agent). Put 
> the search terms in a list to find.
> 
> Clint Willard
> Senior ColdFusion Programmer Analyst
> clint...@gmail.com
> h) 770-965-6074
> m) 706-714-5502
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick Peavy  
> wrote:
> Looking for a clever solution to this problem.
> 
> I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious 
> user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long. 
> 
> One solution could be:
> 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and so on, 
> 50 times.
> 
> Another solution could be:
>   do 
> something and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.
> 
> What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal 
> processing? 
> 
> Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB. 
> I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a 
> difference, but it just seems rather crude. 
> 
> __
> Derrick Peavy
> derr...@derrickpeavy.com
> 404-786-5036
> 
> “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
> "In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Clint Willard]

Quick glance I'd say listFindNoCase(searchTermList,cgi.http_user_agent). Put
the search terms in a list to find.

*Clint Willard *
Senior ColdFusion Programmer Analyst
clint...@gmail.com
h) 770-965-6074
m) 706-714-5502



On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick Peavy wrote:

> Looking for a clever solution to this problem.
>
> I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious
> user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long.
>
> One solution could be:
>
> (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
> (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
> (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and so on, 50
> times.
>
> Another solution could be:
> do something
> and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.
>
> What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal
> processing?
>
> Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB.
> I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a
> difference, but it just seems rather crude.
>
> __
> Derrick Peavy
> derr...@derrickpeavy.com
> 404-786-5036
>
> “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
> "In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
> _
>
> **
>
>

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Fennell, Mark P.]

If you are using apache, .htaccess is your friend. It will use fewer resources 
because it can stop a request before it even reaches ColdFusion.
mf

 -Original Message-
From:   Derrick Peavy [mailto:derr...@derrickpeavy.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, August 24, 2011 06:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject:Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

Cameron,

Quick answer:  In that example, and in the code, it's not the same searchTerm. 
(i.e.: 'Purebot', 'proxy', 'misuga' 'google').  The example looks for this 
substring inside the user agent (keeping in mind that the user agent can be 
faked of course).  Bots known to cause problems are tracked and timed 
differently. Good bots are logged for other reasons. Users deemed to be human 
are logged. Reasons why that data is needed is another matter.  My feeling is 
that there has to be a better way to do it. 

So, Looking over Ajas' link now and cf411 as well. 


__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
_




On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:


Are you always finding the string in a subset of the 
"cgi.http_user_agent" string or is it an exact match?

-Cameron


On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick Peavy 
 wrote:


Looking for a clever solution to this problem.

I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots 
and malicious user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long. 

One solution could be:

(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
(findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc 
and so on, 50 times.

Another solution could be:
do 
something and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.

What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and 
minimal processing? 

Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or 
pulled from a DB. I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. 
Don't see a difference, but it just seems rather crude. 

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - 
Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth 
Galbraith
_








-- 
Cameron Childress
--
p:   678.637.5072
im: cameroncf

facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cameroncf>  | twitter 
<http://twitter.com/cameronc>  | google+ 
<https://profiles.google.com/u/0/117829379451708140985> 

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Derrick Peavy]

Cameron,

Quick answer:  In that example, and in the code, it's not the same searchTerm. 
(i.e.: 'Purebot', 'proxy', 'misuga' 'google').  The example looks for this 
substring inside the user agent (keeping in mind that the user agent can be 
faked of course).  Bots known to cause problems are tracked and timed 
differently. Good bots are logged for other reasons. Users deemed to be human 
are logged. Reasons why that data is needed is another matter.  My feeling is 
that there has to be a better way to do it. 

So, Looking over Ajas' link now and cf411 as well. 

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
_



On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:

> Are you always finding the string in a subset of the "cgi.http_user_agent" 
> string or is it an exact match?
> 
> -Cameron
> 
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick Peavy  
> wrote:
> Looking for a clever solution to this problem.
> 
> I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious 
> user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long. 
> 
> One solution could be:
> 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and so on, 
> 50 times.
> 
> Another solution could be:
>   do 
> something and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.
> 
> What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal 
> processing? 
> 
> Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB. 
> I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a 
> difference, but it just seems rather crude. 
> 
> __
> Derrick Peavy
> derr...@derrickpeavy.com
> 404-786-5036
> 
> “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
> "In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cameron Childress
> --
> p:   678.637.5072
> im: cameroncf
> facebook | twitter | google+
> 
> 

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Derrick Peavy]

Charlie, Thank you! 

Quick answer:  In that example, and in the code, it's not the same searchTerm. 
(i.e.: 'Purebot', 'proxy', 'misuga' 'google').  The example looks for this 
substring inside the user agent (keeping in mind that the user agent can be 
faked of course).  Bots known to cause problems are tracked and timed 
differently. Good bots are logged for other reasons. Users deemed to be human 
are logged. Reasons why that data is needed is another matter.  My feeling is 
that there has to be a better way to do it. 

So, Looking over Ajas' link now and cf411 as well. 

__
Derrick Peavy
derr...@derrickpeavy.com
404-786-5036

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
_



On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Charlie Arehart wrote:

> You don’t really mean the code looks like that (where the #searchterm# is 
> repeated), do you? Because that doesn’t seem to make sense. Maybe it was 
> pseudo code and you left something out.
> 
> But I will say this: I wrote a UDF (posted at cflib and since tweaked by 
> others) that may help you: 
> http://www.cflib.org/index.cfm?event=page.udfbyid&udfid=1908  It’s not long 
> or complicated, but it solves what was for me a problem very similar to 
> yours, and it surprised me (as it may you) that CFML didn’t make it easier. 
> Check it out. If nothing else, it may give you an idea to consider in a 
> variation for your own need.
> 
> All that said, I will note as well that there are other solutions out there 
> for the common problem of handling spiders and bots. Besides the link that 
> Ajas offered, consider also my tools of that sort at 
> http://www.cf411.com/injectprotect. While those focus on sql injection 
> protection (at various levels up/down the stack from CFML to hardware), some 
> of them also offer protection for spiders.
>  
> /charlie
>  
> From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick Peavy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:06 PM
> To: discussion@acfug.org
> Subject: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements
>  
> Looking for a clever solution to this problem.
>  
> I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious 
> user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long. 
>  
> One solution could be:
>  
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 
>   (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and so 
> on, 50 times.
>  
> Another solution could be:
>   do 
> something and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.
>  
> What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal 
> processing? 
>  
> Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB. 
> I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a 
> difference, but it just seems rather crude. 
> 
> __
> Derrick Peavy
> derr...@derrickpeavy.com
> 404-786-5036
>  
> “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
> "In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
> _
>  
>  
>  
> 
> - 
> To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
> http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform 
> 
> For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists 
> Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ 
> List hosted by FusionLink 
> -

RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Charlie Arehart]

You don't really mean the code looks like that (where the #searchterm# is
repeated), do you? Because that doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it was
pseudo code and you left something out.

But I will say this: I wrote a UDF (posted at cflib and since tweaked by
others) that may help you: http://www.cflib.org/index.cfm?event=page.udfbyid
 &udfid=1908
It's not long or complicated, but it solves what was for me a problem very
similar to yours, and it surprised me (as it may you) that CFML didn't make
it easier. Check it out. If nothing else, it may give you an idea to
consider in a variation for your own need.

All that said, I will note as well that there are other solutions out there
for the common problem of handling spiders and bots. Besides the link that
Ajas offered, consider also my tools of that sort at
http://www.cf411.com/injectprotect. While those focus on sql injection
protection (at various levels up/down the stack from CFML to hardware), some
of them also offer protection for spiders.

 

/charlie

 

From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Derrick Peavy
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:06 PM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

 

Looking for a clever solution to this problem.

 

I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious
user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long. 

 

One solution could be:

 

  (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 

  (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR 

  (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and
so on, 50 times.

 

Another solution could be:

  do
something and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.

 

What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal
processing? 

 

Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB.
I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a
difference, but it just seems rather crude. 


__

Derrick Peavy

derr...@derrickpeavy.com

404-786-5036

 

"Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower." - Steve Jobs

"In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith

_

 

 

 




-
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ 
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform

For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com
-

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Cameron Childress]

Are you always finding the string in a subset of the "cgi.http_user_agent"
string or is it an exact match?

-Cameron

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick Peavy wrote:

> Looking for a clever solution to this problem.
>
> I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious
> user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long.
>
> One solution could be:
>
> (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
> (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
>  (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and so on,
> 50 times.
>
> Another solution could be:
> do something
> and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.
>
> What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal
> processing?
>
> Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB.
> I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a
> difference, but it just seems rather crude.
>
> __
> Derrick Peavy
> derr...@derrickpeavy.com
> 404-786-5036
>
> “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
> "In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
> _
>
> **
>
>


-- 
Cameron Childress
--
p:   678.637.5072
im: cameroncf
facebook  |
twitter |
google+ 

Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Best way to handle chunk of CFIF statements

[Ajas Mohammed]

Not sure if you are looking for same thing but Ben Nadel had a thread
related to this.

http://www.bennadel.com/blog/1083-ColdFusion-Session-Management-And-Spiders-Bots.htm


http://ajashadi.blogspot.com
We cannot become what we need to be, remaining what we are.
No matter what, find a way. Because thats what winners do.
You can't improve what you don't measure.
Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention,
sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents
the wise choice of many alternatives.


On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Derrick Peavy wrote:

> Looking for a clever solution to this problem.
>
> I have some code on a site that checks for known spiders/bots and malicious
> user agents.   The list of "known" is baout 50 or so long.
>
> One solution could be:
>
> (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
> (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR
>  (findNoCase('#searchTerm#', cgi.http_user_agent)) OR ... etc and so on,
> 50 times.
>
> Another solution could be:
> do something
> and repeat that complete CFIF 50 times.
>
> What is a creative way to solve this without so many IF's and minimal
> processing?
>
> Alos, the list of user agents can be either file based or pulled from a DB.
> I've done it both ways and I have used both solutions above. Don't see a
> difference, but it just seems rather crude.
>
> __
> Derrick Peavy
> derr...@derrickpeavy.com
> 404-786-5036
>
> “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” - Steve Jobs
> "In economics, the majority is always wrong." - John Kenneth Galbraith
> _
>
> **
>
>