hmmm, do you figure calling the guy "assholic" will get him to come around to
your point of view? Or was that not what you were going for?
whatever
it's consensus here that this cat's scripts arent good...ok...everyone is now
"preaching to the choir"
could we please drop this thread? It's g
Somebody just said "assholic." I like that word. Should it be used when
evaluating code? It could escalate something like this. :)
loose
unclear/uncommented
buggy/unstable
contains security flaws
completely unsafe
stupid
assholic
---
Outgoin
On Wed, 15 May 2002 16:34:48 +0100, Camilo Gonzalez wrote:
> I emailed Mr. Wright concerning the security oversights and the fact
> Verio won't let me us his script anymore and have yet to hear from him.
> How assholic can one get? Is he still alive? Does anyone know what he's
> doing now?
To be
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:52 AM
To: Camilo Gonzalez
Cc: 'Dave Cross'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Matt Wright's formMail
Yay us! (I work for Verio)
Cheers,
Kevin
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:40:45AM -0500, Camilo Gonzalez
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something
Yay us! (I work for Verio)
Cheers,
Kevin
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:40:45AM -0500, Camilo Gonzalez
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something similar to:
> Verio, the world's largest ISP.
>
> Can you please tell me which ISP this is. I'm tring to keep a list of
> ISPs that have come to their senses an
Verio, the world's largest ISP.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Cross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Matt Wright's formMail
On Mon, 13 May 2002 16:07:54 +0100, Camilo Gonzalez wrote:
> I've just been i
On Wed, 15 May 2002 02:11:22 +0100, Drieux wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 10:45 , Dave Cross wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 17:14:03 +0100, Drieux wrote:
> [..]
>>> there was a security update to v1.92 on 04/21/02 has there been some
>>> new issue arise??? since then?
>>
>> Matt's version
volks,
thanks for the scoop on what is what...
I'd prefer a gooder reason to a jihaud - and I think a sufficiency
of explanation has been presented. I R new to CGI in perl - sort of
had it thrust upon me since 'well you know perl'
On Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 10:45 , Dave Cross wrote:
> On
On Mon, 13 May 2002 17:14:03 +0100, Drieux wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 08:52 , Kevin Meltzer wrote:
>
>> try the rewrite from NMS:
>>
>> http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kevin
>
> which version of the code is the 'problem' version?
>
> what is the current specific 'se
On Mon, 13 May 2002 22:03:42 +0100, Camilo Gonzalez wrote:
> After a quick perusal it seems the replacement form's greatest
> contribution seems to be to limit the number of recipients that may be
> emailed at any one time. There seem to a number of other improvements
> and it looks like the code
On Mon, 13 May 2002 16:07:54 +0100, Camilo Gonzalez wrote:
> I've just been informned by my ISP that Matt Wright's formMail will no
> longer be allowed on any of their servers due to glaring security
> concerns. I know now I shouldn't have used it but back then I was stupid
> and not a subscriber
Heya,
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:42:55PM -0700, Bruce Ferrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said
something similar to:
> Just to throw jet fuel on the fire... cuz they come up on a google
> search for:
>
> cgi perl counter
>
> and nms doesn't! :)
And that is one of the problems some in the community h
Just to throw jet fuel on the fire... cuz they come up on a google
search for:
cgi perl counter
and nms doesn't! :)
Seriously, I do use them (ok, did until now) because they're handy,
don't spew errors and I can understand the code. Now that I know they
have problems, probably not anymore...
On 5/13/02 2:43 PM, Kevin Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To sum up.. Matts code is bad. It has various security holes, is not
> maintained, and is in Perl 4. The 'vendetta' has come from years of him
> NOT removing his scripts from the internet (spreading cargo-cult
> programming), and not
Ack.. I used to have a nice long, detailed reason why (I think I may
have sent it to someone on this list at some point who asked me the
same question).
To sum up.. Matts code is bad. It has various security holes, is not
maintained, and is in Perl 4. The 'vendetta' has come from years of him
NO
Michael Kelly wrote:
> Ok, I have a question now: What, exactly, started the vendetta that the
> entire Perl community seems to have against Matt's Script Archives? Is it
> the constant security concerns, or is there something else?
there is no vendetta that i know of.
the nms project at sourc
Original Message-
From: John Brooking [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:53 PM
To: cgi
Subject: Re: Matt Wright's formMail
I must confess I'm not intimately familiar with the
script in question, so I don't completely understand
what the code snippet t
I must confess I'm not intimately familiar with the
script in question, so I don't completely understand
what the code snippet that drieux included does,
therefore how it is or is not sufficiently secure.
However, I have some more general comments in the way
of clarification.
It seems to me that
On 5/13/02 10:49 AM, fliptop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i think what you're missing is there's no point in trying to justify
> running any version of any of matt's code - use the drop in replacements
> at sourceforge or take the (quite unnecessary) risk. it's as simple as
> that.
Ok, I have a
drieux wrote:
>
> or am I missing something here???
i think what you're missing is there's no point in trying to justify
running any version of any of matt's code - use the drop in replacements
at sourceforge or take the (quite unnecessary) risk. it's as simple as
that.
--
To unsubscrib
On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 09:21 , Camilo Gonzalez wrote:
[..]
> The problems seem to be that it uses the Referer environmental variable to
> exclude spammers and it gives the option of encoding data in the URL. I've
> been told both are considered security risks. My ISP does not think even
> t
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:14:03AM -0700, drieux ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something
similar to:
> which version of the code is the 'problem' version?
>
> what is the current specific 'security' issue?
>
> there was a security update to v1.92 on 04/21/02
> has there been some new issue arise???
il on its
servers.
-Original Message-
From: drieux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:14 AM
To: cgi
Subject: Re: Matt Wright's formMail
On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 08:52 , Kevin Meltzer wrote:
>
> try the rewrite from NMS:
>
> http://nms-cgi.sourc
On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 08:52 , Kevin Meltzer wrote:
>
> try the rewrite from NMS:
>
> http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin
which version of the code is the 'problem' version?
what is the current specific 'security' issue?
there was a security update to v1.92 on 04/21/02
ha
Thank you all for this link.
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Meltzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Camilo Gonzalez
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Matt Wright's formMail
try the rewrite from NMS:
http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
Cheers,
Kevi
try the rewrite from NMS:
http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
Cheers,
Kevin
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:07:54AM -0500, Camilo Gonzalez
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something similar to:
> I've just been informned by my ISP that Matt Wright's formMail will no
> longer be allowed on any of their servers
Camilo Gonzalez wrote:
> I've just been informned by my ISP that Matt Wright's formMail will no
> longer be allowed on any of their servers due to glaring security concerns.
> I know now I shouldn't have used it but back then I was stupid and not a
> subscriber to this fine list. Let this serve a
Hi,
Not Matt's Scripts
http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/scripts.shtml
-lisa
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28 matches
Mail list logo
