r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL2 Releases] Discuss 2.x releases

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 :(