Text 10535, 83 rader
Skriven 2007-08-19 17:52:16 av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38.9)
  Kommentar till text 10504 av Shawn Highfield (1:229/452.2)
Ärende: linux servers hacked...!
================================
Hey Shawn!

Aug 19 11:57 07, Shawn Highfield wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 SH>   Actually it wouldn't be that hard to do in Vim would it?

The actual messages are no problem but if vim is expected to tack on the
outbound headers ftn-style it might be.  Offhand I am not aware of vim being
able to create 16-bit binary integers and if it is then some sort of
configuration would have to be available for it to write the correct integers. 
For that part I was using ascii2binary (could also be perl) which is called
once the message(s) are created by vim.  Bascially the flow of the script is as
follows;

1) scan and set Date, Msgid, etc. and prompt for To: (it already knows From:)
2) call vim (create message with To: From: Date:)
3) tack on the msg header (ascii2binary)
4) finished?  If more then go back to 1) if not then precede
5) tack on the pkt header (ascii2binary)

The problem is whether of not vim can also do steps 3) and 5) as per ftn specs.
 For the local archive 3) and 5) are ignored.

 SH> I've got 
 SH> the specs here I'm going to play around a bit (I use the windows port 
 SH> of VIM on this box, so will play a bit.)

Not having ever used that port I am guessing it is simular.  The trick will be
3) and 5).  As for the information that gets put in 3) and 5) I was planning to
use a dotfile in the user's home directory.  I don't think that would work in
Windows given it isn't a multiuser OS.  The rest should be the same.

 SH>   Funny thing is though, if I am working on a box with only vi on it, 
 SH> I will install VIM if I have access to do that.  I /need/ the extra 
 SH> features. ;)

Ah!  Mine has it all which is highly debateable whether I really need or want
all that.

 SH>    Workstation, everything is automatic, I don't want to piss around 
 SH> with my personal computers, just want to use them. :)

I am somewhat the opposite.  Once I have something figured out I generally get
bored with it.

 SH>   It's slick, but I like GUI you don't.

Too boring.  The only reason I can figure out worth firing up a GUI for is
freecell.  Very expensive pack of cards, no?

 MK>> They don't need them methinks.  The client should be providing those 
 MK>> types of things for themselves.

 SH>   Aye.

At least we agree on one thing.

 SH>   The web isn't all bad.  Most of the sites worth bothering with can 
 SH> be viewed with Links or Lynx though.

Definetly the ones worthwhile viewing.  What I have learned over the years is
that if a text browser can't render a site then there is a 99.99999999% chance
there is nothing of any real value on that site.

 SH>   Strange, I noticed the exact opposite here, the LCD is much more 
 SH> clear and sharp.  When I have to work on CRT's I get a headache now, 
 SH> keep a 15" LCD spare for working on my daughters computer. (She likes 
 SH> her 21" CRT, and I can't look at it).

I suppose it also depends on the quality of the CRT's and LCD's.  In this case
they are both roughly the same in terms of quality as to manufacturing etc. so
maybe it is just what I have grown accustomed to over the years.  Also I have
seen some high quality widescreen LCD's that look like they have a good shot at
replacing the CRT here but they want far too much money for those.  I could buy
a couple really high quality CRT's for the same price.  Bottomline is that
although I like the LCD I have, I like the CRT I have better.  Push comes to
shove I have it all covered.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0
 * Origin: The Pointy Stick Society XXIX - Only one I in teamwork (1:261/38.9)