> Please correct me if I'm wrong... but I read somewhere out there that
> server push headers only work with Netscape and not much else.
That may be. As I said, I haven't used one in quite a few years.
Grant M.
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL
A meta refresh will be difficult to do because the connection isn't
persistent. A meta refresh will only restart the script every time it
requests the script again. The only way that I can see this working is to
use what is known as "server-push". This is done using the Content-type:
> This somewhat misses my point. The lack of migration of many users should
> not be viewed as a problem, necessarily, but as a difference of opinion, a
> choice. The widespread view that people who stick with Perl 5 will be
> sticking with an old, crufty, slow, backward, legacy language is the
> My only real concern is that when Perl 6 comes out, the community will be
> fractured, and we -- you, me, Larry, Damian -- will need to work to
> minimize the damage, for the benefit of Perl 5 and Perl 6 users. We will
> need to deal with CPAN/PAUSE/RT/search, we will need to deal with IRC and
> I've got a script which reads a config file to get a database username and
> password, among other things. What should the permissions be so that the
> cgi script running on the web server can read the file, but
> random users on
> the system can't? Is this the best way for the script to get
>
> Just remember when watching the perl6-language list that it's more
> performance art than actual language design...
It's not a bug, just an "unscripted performance"?
Grant M.
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's some sample code to give people a better idea of what I am trying to
do (it's not pretty). It will parse the email address given as I had
planned, but doesn't actually do any comparisons yet. My primary reason for
wanting to do this is DWIM for the user, where [EMAIL PROTECTED] will
not be
Sorry I took so long to get back, I was at an interview
> > I don't see how '*@*.aol.*' can match '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
> > How do you account for the first '.' in the match expression?
>
> For that matter, can a regular expression validly begin with "*" at all?
> What does that mean?
>
> And why
> I don't see how '*@*.aol.*' can match '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
> How do you account for the first '.' in the match expression?
By splitting it into @cnames, $domain, $tld and $cc, so that (pseudocode):
$user_cc eq $cc? if $cc
$user_tld eq $tld?
$user_domain eq $domain?
and
foreach( @user_cnames )
> Did you volunteer for this? Did anyone laugh when you spoke up?
Just in my head. They're always laughing at me. What? I couldn't KILL HER...
Grant M. (& Co.)
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
> dude- the nightmare is only beginning ...
Would that be "Nightmare on /usr/bin/elm Street"?
;-)
Grant M.
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
> Here's another one: future proofing. The two or three character TLD
> constraint you see today isn't necessary, and maybe in the future we'll
> see longer addresses ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Or Rendezvous
> might catch on, and addresses of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] might become
> common in some
> > 2.> Do email addresses ever have port numbers appended, like this:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:24
> >
>
> I don't think so. Which port would they use? The SMTP port? The POP3
> port? IMAP? Could you have the same email address with different
> mailboxes if you used the IMAP vs POP3 port?
> What's non-standard about it? (apart from the spelling)
Sorry, "not-typical".
> Indeed it's not typical, but it is standard in that it has all the right
> records in all the right places like the DNS*. And yes, PLENTY of other
> countries have longword.cc-style domains. France, for instance,
> There's a long debate on the authenticity of that item and
> InternalMemos in
> general on SlashDot.com .
Understandable, however the particular issues of backward-compatibility and
memory footprint are still valid in my opinion (at least compared to many
other competing languages).
> And the
This is an argument I've been having for years with the 'Powers That Be'. I
finally feel vindicated:
http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1321
Unfortunately, they don't seem to make the comparison between Java and
mod_perl.
Grant M.
> Now, what's driving me crazy is that the two test values are being added
> to the hash, simply by looking for $apples{$t}{weight}. If I simply
> look for $apples{$t}, like so:
I remember reading something about this. This is due to autovivification of
the the $apples{$t} value in order to look
I'm working on a script for NMS, and I've encountered a problem. It's likely
just me, but for some reason the '%T' and '%R' format specifiers don't seem
to be working under Win2k, yet the '%H:%M' specifiers work. I've tried both
cygwin perl 5.6.1 and ActivePerl 5.6.1. Here's my test script:
use
> The example I showed did *not* provide the HTML document as an attachment.
> I used a Content-Type of multipart/alternative, which indicates that the
> parts of the message are alternative forms of the message, and the mail
> client may choose to render whichever part it chooses. Outlook would
> Both of the proposed solutions so far would have you sending HTML-only
> email. Please do not do this; email which contains HTML without a
> corresponding plain text part is malformed.
I understand the objections people may have to the sole inclusion of HTML
content in email, however providing
> But how would I get Outlook to recognize that as a HTML
> message and not a plain text message? Any ideas would be greatly
> appreciated.
I've used this from the shell prompt with sendmail:
=== FILE mail.src ===
From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Human Resources" <[EMAIL
D'oh!
> (Parentheses are our friends.)
Grant M.
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
This isn't really what I would call elegant, but it does what you want in
one line of code:
# '_' is a \w, so avoid greediness by specifying a-Z, 0-9
$_ =~ s/(([a-zA-Z0-9]+)_\w+)/push @{$group{"$2"}}, "$1"; $1/ge;
For some reason you end up with an extra empty array entry (I'm not sure
why).
Why isn't this working (I'm know that I've used it before):
=
#!/usr/bin/perl -Tw
my $string = "This is a PERL_FDATA_tieval for testing";
my $tieval = "String";
# $string =~ s/PERL_FDATA_([a-zA-Z]+)/$$1/i;
$string =~
As far as I can tell, this is spam. The board only has a 27 forums that
TOTAL 38 posts. It seems that this is just an effort to generate traffic,
which leads me to believe that this 'Jeff Kirkland' has something to do with
the site. He is also one of only three members that has posted more than
25 matches
Mail list logo
