World: r3wp
[!REBOL2 Releases] Discuss 2.x releases
older newer | first last |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1497] | OK, cool :) |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1498x5] | that covers 99.9% of the world's email services |
http://rebol.wik.is/Protocols | |
and pop3 http://compkarori.no-ip.biz:8090/@api/deki/files/560/=prot-spop.r | |
I've got a demo script somewhere that logs in to hotmail/gmail and downloads all new messages and strips out the attachments | |
Found it http://accessories.s3.amazonaws.com/hotmailer.r | |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1503x4] | Is it Gmail-style POP3 over TLS on port 995, or is it RFC2595 STLS negotiation? |
It might be a good idea to have the standard pop:// protocol do the STLS negotiation, and have pops:// do POP3S like Gmail. | |
That way we can support both. | |
Same with imap:// vs. imaps://. | |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1507] | I keep thinking that rebol doesn't do tls ... but if it does, I don't use it |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1508] | I meant your fixes, not what REBOL does now :) |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1509] | Well my fixes are just to open the secure port ... that's it |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1510] | Ah, pops then. spop would be pop over ssh :) |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1511x3] | pops it is then |
what's secure smtp ? | |
smtps ? | |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1514] | Yes. |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1515x2] | Ok, I didn't know the naming schemes |
so ssend => sends :) | |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1517x2] | S in front = SSH, S at the end = SSL. SEND/secure :) |
We can add RFC2595 TLS negotiation to the regular pop:// and imap:// protocols later. | |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1519] | I doubt it |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1520] | You doubt that we can, or that we will? |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1521x2] | latter |
Carl is not after major enhancements to Rebol except as rebol3 | |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1523] | Well, it depends on priorities. These changes are mezzanine, and just extensions at that, backwards-compatible. Carl doesn't have to be involved with mezzanine R2 changes - that's my job. |
Maxim 17-Apr-2010 [1524] | and probably, the algorythms, once understood can be readily retro-fitted to R3. |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1525] | but TLS is not mezzanine ... |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1526x2] | Over SSL then. |
And my major priorities that have been keeping me away from my computer for the last few months are near their end. | |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1528] | Eh? I've seen you here most days! :) |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1529] | I pop in, but haven't had much time to code. When I've been here lately I'm too exhausted to program. |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1530] | In that case you have a list of jobs a mile long to do ... |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1531] | Well, yeah. So what else is new? :) |
Graham 17-Apr-2010 [1532] | So, are you too exhausted today? :) |
BrianH 17-Apr-2010 [1533] | I'll be on next week, but this is the first time in two weeks that I've been able to spend more than a few minutes at home and I'm taking a break. |
Graham 25-Apr-2010 [1534] | It might be a good idea to patch in Cyphre's cookie handling support as well http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=my-http.r |
BrianH 25-Apr-2010 [1535] | Looks good :) |
Gregg 25-Apr-2010 [1536] | I think he might have an updated version as well. Worth pinging him if he doesn't check in here. |
BrianH 25-Apr-2010 [1537] | Doesn't seem to parse the cookies, just passes them through. Probably good enough for a low-level protocol. |
Graham 27-Apr-2010 [1538] | Any updates here? |
Graham 29-Apr-2010 [1539x2] | this seems to be an oddity to me >> min 10x0 11x0 == 10x0 >> max 10x0 11x0 == 11x0 >> 10x0 > 11x0 ** Script Error: Expected one of: pair! - not: pair! ** Near: 10x0 > 11x0 |
so to get a greater than we have to do >> 10x0 = max 10x0 11x0 == false | |
Sunanda 29-Apr-2010 [1541] | Or use SORT and see which one comes first :) SORT embodies different logic to the GREATER?, LESSER? (etc) when it comes to implementing ordering. And that can sometimes be useful, or at least, usable. |
Pekr 29-Apr-2010 [1542] | Sort nicely worked for me, when sorting IP addresses. I switched from string type to tupple type upon BrianH's suggestion :-) It was initially "easier" for me to keep IPs as strings, but I was just lazy to use native REBOL dtype :-) |
BrianH 29-Apr-2010 [1543] | Graham, afaict the direct comparators don't support pair! because there are situations where the answer is ambiguous: >> 1x0 > 0x1 ** Script error: cannot compare pair! with pair! ** Where: > ** Near: > 0x1 >> max 1x0 0x1 == 1x1 |
Steeve 29-Apr-2010 [1544] | Always the same battle, Default behaviorists against Errors Creationists |
BrianH 29-Apr-2010 [1545x2] | Do you really want > and < to return none if they run into a ambiguous situation? Right now all of those functions return true or false. |
Imagine all the code that would have to change if we switched to SQL-style 3-value logic :( | |
older newer | first last |