Was trying to modify phone number validation and saw this:
/* Asshole detector */
if (stristr(szNewPhone, "555-1212") || stristr(szNewPhone, "5551212"))
{
Puts(cantskip);
return TRUE;
}
/* Asshole detector */
if (stristr(szNewPhone, "555-1212") || stristr(szNewPhone, "5551212"))
{
Puts(cantskip);
return TRUE;
}
Heh I guess it should match all 555- ;)
"5551212"))/* Asshole detector */
if (stristr(szNewPhone, "555-1212") || stristr(szNewPhone,
{
Puts(cantskip);
return TRUE;
}
Heh I guess it should match all 555- ;)
I'm going to remove phone number validation altogether. It's no longer ML>relevant
in this day and age and/or is too restrictive for different formats eg. ML>international convention.
if (stristr(szNewPhone, "555-1212") || stristr(szNewPhone, "5551212"))
I'm going to remove phone number validation altogether. It's no longer ML>relevant
in this day and age and/or is too restrictive for different formats eg. ML>international convention.
Indeed, have you made any changes to maximus except for this one?
On Sun 2010-02-28 20:56, Mvan Le (3:800/432) wrote to All:
if (stristr(szNewPhone, "555-1212") ||
stristr(szNewPhone, "5551212"))
Apparently 555-1212 is Directory Assistance in the US and Canada.
Apparently 555-1212 is Directory Assistance in the US and Canada.
Ah I see. I suppose that should be rejected back in the day when
people actually took phone numbers seriously. These days nobody
cares :)
On Thu 2010-03-04 20:29, Mvan Le (3:800/432) wrote to Andrew Clarke:
Apparently 555-1212 is Directory Assistance in the US and Canada.
Ah I see. I suppose that should be rejected back in the day when
people actually took phone numbers seriously. These days nobody
cares :)
I don't think anybody really cared much back then either :)
Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
if (stristr(szNewPhone, "555-1212") || stristr(szNewPhone, "5551212
Apparently 555-1212 is Directory Assistance in the US and Canada.
I'm going to remove phone number validation altogether. It's nolonger
relevant
in this day and age and/or is too restrictive for different formats ML>eg.
international convention.
Indeed, have you made any changes to maximus except for this one?
Nah not really. Still just getting familiar with the sources and making ML>tiny patches.
I need a massive refresher of the K&R book because I've forgotten all my ML>C. Progress is very slow.
Version: 3.02-1
Commenced: 01-Feb-2010
Released:
* Changed Maximus version to "3.02-1".
* Added 4-digit year to log messages.
* Added Node number to WFC heading.
* Enhanced S3 build scripts,
o Added "make*.bat" files.
o "max_dirs.cmd" now creates "%DEVROOT%tmp" to be used by Wlink.
o Fixed problem with "BLDROOT%\max\makefile.mk" trying to compile
"english.mad" with "maidn.exe" instead of "maid.exe" eventhough
mode=r was set. (This problem occurs when max is built before
utils).
* Updated "MaximusSourceDoc.doc".
* Changes to "Max.doc":
o Added "Appendix I: The Maximus version number" to "Max.doc".
o Added "1.1.1. Why use Maximus".
o Added "1.1.2. Why Maximus is better than <competing_BBS>".
* Changes to "Max.doc":
o Added "Appendix I: The Maximus version number" to "Max.doc".
o Added "1.1.1. Why use Maximus".
o Added "1.1.2. Why Maximus is better than <competing_BBS>".
It would be interesting to read that file.
* Changes to "Max.doc":
o Added "Appendix I: The Maximus version number" to "Max.doc".
o Added "1.1.1. Why use Maximus".
o Added "1.1.2. Why Maximus is better than <competing_BBS>".
It would be interesting to read that file.
Well, there's no content in those sections yet. Can't release it in that ML>state
because people would laugh. Heh.
I'm sure there're some pretty good reasons why Synchronet sucks. Maybe ML>one
would be that it takes about 4 or 5 different compilers to compile its ML>source
code. It is not cool because too many people use it.
What else.
What else.
You want to compare maximus to BBSes in development and mutliplatform?
I guess synchronet is the only one left then..
Re: Funny code section
By: Bo Simonsen to Mvan Le on Fri Mar 05 2010 05:30 pm
What else.
You want to compare maximus to BBSes in development andmutliplatform?
I guess synchronet is the only one left then..
I can change that with some cheap overseas labour.
I guess synchronet is the only one left then..
I can change that with some cheap overseas labour.
You mean Indian or Ukrainian labour?
Was trying to modify phone number validation and saw this:
/* Asshole detector */
if (stristr(szNewPhone, "555-1212") || stristr(szNewPhone, "5551212"))
{
Puts(cantskip);
return TRUE;
}
Heh I guess it should match all 555- ;)
Reading other peoples code can be very entertaining..
Heh I guess it should match all 555- ;)
Apparently 555-1212 is Directory Assistance in the US and Canada.
Apparently 555-1212 is Directory Assistance in the US and Canada.
I don't think anybody really cared much back then either :)
Apparently 555-1212 is Directory Assistance in the US and Canada.
I don't think anybody really cared much back then either :)
uh, yeah... they did too... how were/are they supposed to be able to
verify a caller without one? consider a caller who forgets their password...
it hasn't been all that long ago, guys... POTS is still alive and
well and active ;)
i beg to differ again... there are many who do care and if people can't
comply with their rules for accessing their system, then they get the
boot... i don't know of any /real/ sysops who don't care...
MvLe> I'm going to remove phone number validation altogether. It's no
MvLe> longer relevant in this day and age and/or is too restrictive for
MvLe> different formats eg. international convention.
i beg to differ... removing it could be a huge mistake that will bite you
on the ass really hard :P
MvLe> Ah I see. I suppose that should be rejected back in the day when
MvLe> people actually took phone numbers seriously. These days nobody
MvLe> cares :)
i beg to differ again... there are many who do care and if people can't comply with their rules for accessing their system, then they get the boot... i don't know of any /real/ sysops who don't care...
I agree, Just today I got a new user validation request from someone who
couldn't leave any information to prove he was a real person. I can
imagine
the code being a bit of a pain for callers who telnet in and have no
pots
, cell phone, etc. Granted, how many people don't have a cell phone,
voip phone, or land-line phone?
MvLe> I'm going to remove phone number validation altogether. It's no
MvLe> longer relevant in this day and age and/or is too restrictive for
MvLe> different formats eg. international convention.
i beg to differ... removing it could be a huge mistake that will bite you
on the ass really hard :P
MvLe> Ah I see. I suppose that should be rejected back in the day when
MvLe> people actually took phone numbers seriously. These days nobody
MvLe> cares :)
i beg to differ again... there are many who do care and if people can't comply with their rules for accessing their system, then they get the boot... i don't know of any /real/ sysops who don't care...
number... also, there's been many times that i've seen someone online on my bbs that was obviously having problems or was needing assistance while they were online... if they only list phone number, it is rather hard to call them to help if they are using that number for their connection... however, if they list two numbers, then it is a much easier task to call them and walk them thru things while they are online or trying to come online...
methinks you are simply not aware of life outside the internet and 24x7 connectivity... definitely nothing near a "local community" atmosphere :?
MvLe> Are you running a shady or top-secret bbs or something ?
no... why would you think that??
MvLe> Those /real/ sysops you referred need to get with the times.
all i'm saying is don't cripple the existing system such that the existing ways and means no longer work... add new features and capabilities in addition to what's already there... if you want to allow for someone to
give their IP number or website address, by all means do so... in another field in the user database... if there's not an existing field for that purpose, then add one... that's what upgrades and enhancements are all about...
until POTS lines are completely done away with, there's no reason to gimp software that works with them...
number... also, there's been many times that i've seen someone
online on my bbs that was obviously having problems or was needing assistance while they were online... if they only list phone number,
it is rather hard to call them to help if they are using that number
for their connection... however, if they list two numbers, then it
is a much easier task to call them and walk them thru things while
they are online or trying to come online...
number... also, there's been many times that i've seen someone
online on my bbs that was obviously having problems or was needing assistance while they were online... if they only list phone number,
it is rather hard to call them to help if they are using that number
for their connection... however, if they list two numbers, then it
is a much easier task to call them and walk them thru things while
they are online or trying to come online...
MvLe> Are you serious ? You actually spend money to -call- people to
MvLe> assist their BBS use ? ...
what $$$? we're talking about a local call... not
something half way around the world... local calls
don't cost a thing over here...
Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
Chiming in here too Mark and MvLe and all!
Please *DO NOT* remove this from the work on MAX, BINK; Whatever.
To do so would be a horrible step in taking away what we *CAN* do
for all the world, if we continue to contribute to FidoNet as some
of us do still today for reasons I have shown you above.
It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to preserve the POTS phone number access
and use techniques in BBS software.
number... also, there's been many times that i've seen someone
online on my bbs that was obviously having problems or was needing
assistance while they were online... if they only list phone number,
it is rather hard to call them to help if they are using that number
for their connection... however, if they list two numbers, then it
is a much easier task to call them and walk them thru things while
they are online or trying to come online...
MvLe> Are you serious ? You actually spend money to -call- people to
MvLe> assist their BBS use ? ...
Yes and ABSOLUTELY necessary in some cases for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) mission critical military and public service reasons. Read on please.
what $$$? we're talking about a local call... not
something half way around the world... local calls
don't cost a thing over here...
And in MANY cases now in the whole USA there is no such thing as $$ long
distance calls anywhere in the whole USA or even into MANY countries using POT >call techniques. There are now many telephone services here that include *ALL
long distance calls completely in your monthly phone bill flat rate service
charge. Even as I think I am correct in stating that it may even be less than
USD $20 a month for such services.
Which absolutely CAN be used in many cases for BBS message and file transfer work, particularly for BACKUP mission critical communication when what most
people think is total bliss IP service ** is gone. For however long 'gone' is
or is going to be. Please read on.
FidoNet 1/117 here of which I'm the NC has a lot more responsibility that just
the 'normal' message stuff that we tend to think is the purpose of FidoNet. Although it has very few nodes published in the formal NodeList, it also has
some 50 more PRIVATE nodes which are *NOT* published in the formal NodeList an >have *NEVER* been the subject of a problem for FidoNet as to 'improper' access
This very special collection of nodes is TOTALLY capable of POTS phone
connections for backup and emergency file data and message purposes in case th
normal IP service for an EOC or a medical facility or whatever ceases to be available for whatever reason. But a telephone connection still can be made between two facilities that are desparate to share even low level data and message service.
Don't laugh. It *CAN* and *DOES* happen. Here in the USA, for actual fact,
hurricane penetration on the Gulf Coast has taken down the complete electrical
power grid operations for entire major land areas for longer than a week at a time. And in certain rural areas, even though now power is there, POTS telephone line operation is still present in that the phone lines, which in many cases are buried cables,are still there, still work, and still connected to rural POTS switches which are kept operational with emergency generator
services. I have actually seen East Texas small town medical service which ha
POTS service but no IP service for even two weeks that *COULD* access the mission critial 1:117/3000 FidoNet node by no other than POTS phone connections. And in some cases the FidoNet Net 117 *HAS* been used for such emergency data service as was needed. By POTS long distance service work.
Which *CAN*, in the case of ZIPLOG mission critical professional support template sofware for which I am responsible and author, be used for condensed but SERIOUSLY IMPORTANT life and death support for the people that choose to
use this techqnique in time of emergency. And I have a formal thank you lette
from the USA ARRL ham radio organization hanging on the wall for proof that
this *CAN* be done even all across the world from FidoNet while even operating
for test purposes from the ham radio Field Day operations with the fully
integrated ZIPLOG managment software template matched to FidoNet. Should this >ever be needed and people choose to use the technique. Yes with PRIVATE nodes >in the network that DO NOT show up in the FidoNet formal NodeList for VERY goo
reasons which I think most reading this can appreciate.
You also BADLY need to realize that there are a whole host of evolving IP service corruption and destruction possibilities that are part of what all of us telecommunications professional folks know is going to be a part of the telecommunications revolution. Which has only, seriously,just begun. That includes wartime and conflict deliberate issues, as well as the threat of EMP
pulse destruction of virtually all copper wired technology, as well as what is
even less understood, the probablity of Solar Flare massive eruption. Do not laugh. The total loss of the entire power grid operations in the whole world is also possible from solar flare eruptions. Few here know about the last
major one we took here on earth in the mid 1800's at the time of the driving o
the Golden Spike when the railroad was first finished connecting the East and West coast of the USA. 1867 from memory here right now.
At that time the communications for the whole affair was by copper wired telegraph instruments and telegraph code. And yes, land line Morse Code is different in the characters than what virtually all of us today know as International Morse Code. A long dash for a number zero instead of what we
know as five dashes as in '- - - - -', today. That actual Solar Flare took ou >and burned up almost ALL of the telepgraph sounders in the whole USA! As well
in some places, the electrical charge that the railroad rails picked up, from the electromagnetic pulse that hit us from the sun, actually set the wooden cross ties on fire where it arced across them to the ground from the rails!
Just one nuclear blast sets forth at least a 30,000,000 volt per METER wavefront moving out to the horizon at the speed of light, folks. The last
test atomic airborne blast in the Pacific about 650 miles from Hawaii, took ou >about half of all the traffic signals in the whole island area in 'sight line'
with no ground mountain blockabge, from the US Navy test blast there at the
Johnson Island complex. Tough luck if you have a pacemaker heart device. You
die.
And true, we *CAN* defend against this type of a problem with fiber optic cabl
connected devices and not metal cable connected service. And buried phone lines; not upstairs phone line service. And we *CAN* use correctly designed computer systems with power supplies that *DO* block the pulse pickup from power line and printer and phone connections of sorts. As fact I have a test relay rack server case here on site which I cooperated with the vendor on EMP
pulse protection desging which can be certified for such service. But we will >no be able to protect any Cell Phones or Ipods or anything like that. Life as
we know it will be GONE for who knows how long if we get hit.
But at the final step backwards in providing even food, water, basic medical care and even knowing where to send the first, second, third responders; whatever, we *MUST* have communications programs which *CAN* use ----
PLAIN ORDINARY TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR ADDRESSING.
Case closed.
Please *DO NOT* remove this from the work on MAX, BINK; Whatever. To do so
would be a horrible step in taking away what we *CAN* do for all the world, if >we continue to contribute to FidoNet as some of us do still today for reasons
have shown you above.
It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to preserve the POTS phone number access and use techniques in BBS software.
To do so would be a horrible step in taking away what we *CAN* do
for all the world, if we continue to contribute to FidoNet as some
of us do still today for reasons I have shown you above.
I"m with you MIke!!!
It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to preserve the POTS phone number access
and use techniques in BBS software.
AS is often said, "preach it brother, preach it!"
Hi Richard,
To do so would be a horrible step in taking away what we *CAN* do
for all the world, if we continue to contribute to FidoNet as some
of us do still today for reasons I have shown you above.
I"m with you MIke!!!
AS is often said, "preach it brother, preach it!"
Perhaps we it would be a good idea write up an operations 'guide'
for using switching services on telephone lines and mailers.. you
know, RingTone kind of things.. So many sysops have forgotten 'so
much' about that kind of thing...
Hi Mike,
It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to preserve the POTS
phone number access and use techniques in BBS software.
Most definitely agree here. There is no need to
remove POTS access in BBS or Mailer software. It
would be a big mistake to do so IMO. Forgive my 'over
quoting', I just feel it can't be said enough.
Matter of fact, Mike, do you mind if I put your
comments in FidoGazette? We've had some articles there
by Richard and this fits right in with his and my
ideas.
Take care,
Janis
Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
what $$$? we're talking about a local call... not something half way around the world... local calls don't cost a thing over here...
what $$$? we're talking about a local call... not something half
way around the world... local calls don't cost a thing over here...
Most definitely agree here. There is no need to remove POTS access in JK>BBS or Mailer software. It would be a big mistake to do so IMO.
Forgive my 'over quoting', I just feel it can't be said enough.
Re: Funny code section
By: mark lewis to Mvan Le on Mon Mar 22 2010 08:24 pm
what $$$? we're talking about a local call... not
something half way around
the world... local calls don't cost a thing over here...
How much does it cost for you to make a local call ?
Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
Hi priceless Janis!
Matter of fact, Mike, do you mind if I put your
comments in FidoGazette? We've had some articles there
by Richard and this fits right in with his and my
ideas.
You are perfectly welcome to post it. With editorial right to correct the couple grammar errors that I accidentally got in there, chortle!
However, I also stress that in no way do I wish to offend anyone as to cause them to run away from also carrying the BBS tools forward into the future for steps up the technology ladder as well. I also know VERY well that the whole
process of going up the ladder with what is really needed for the future of us
all is not at all easy, nor can be done in any short period of time spent at
this. I am deeply appreciative of the work that is being done to carry us all
forward.
From a FidoNet member who still actually does have an original floppy diskette
with the program on it in my collection.
Take care,
Janis
You too Janis. And all of us here in this treasure of a mission.
I"m with you MIke!!!
<snip>
AS is often said, "preach it brother, preach it!"
Perhaps we it would be a good idea write up an operations 'guide'
for using switching services on telephone lines and mailers.. you
know, RingTone kind of things.. So many sysops have forgotten 'so
much' about that kind of thing...
YEp, there are those using the distinctive ring thing quite
successfully.
I"m working on something which spins off
Mike's comments here, but I"d like to see you go forward
with some more groundwork first in fg. THat's not for this
echo I guess <g.>
bringing it back around, wehther the back end behind
something web accessed or pots, Maximus has some good
facilities for message handling geared for tech support or
other support services which could also be quite useful in
such capacities, even with the occasional pots access.
The "ownership" and other audit trail capabilities of
Maximus messaging systems make it quite usable pretty much
out of the box in such an application.
Most definitely agree here. There is no need to remove POTS access in
BBS or Mailer software. It would be a big mistake to do so IMO.
Forgive my 'over quoting', I just feel it can't be said enough.
The only case I can think of where it has been done is synchronet.
However with the pots<->telnet gateway software it's possible to get
POTS call. It just seems strange in some way, since we are used to
all BBS software has POTS support.
The nice thing about developing a UNIX-only BBS is that tcp/ip or
modem doesn't really matter.
YEp, there are those using the distinctive ring thing quite
successfully.
It was one of the things that carried us through the days of
expenses of operating a bbs and feeding our families <vbg> People
didn't have to worry (and still don't) about giving an extra dime to
the phone company. Even now with our calling plan, I can make it a
touch easier for nodes to stay connected to Fidonet by calling and delivering their mail as soon as it comes in.
I"m working on something which spins off
Mike's comments here, but I"d like to see you go forward
with some more groundwork first in fg. THat's not for this
echo I guess <g.>
I dunno.. if it has to do with someone leaving what's not broke in
the Maximus code, it belongs hehe
bringing it back around, wehther the back end behind<snip>
something web accessed or pots, Maximus has some good
facilities for message handling geared for tech support or
other support services which could also be quite useful in
such capacities, even with the occasional pots access.
Agree there... I played with the linux maximus code way back.. I
should pick it up again. When I switched drives here, I didn't
bother copying it over <g>.. this drive has tons of space so.. :)
You can actually subscribe to a POTS phone service, which is handled by IP operations, for USD $12.95 a *YEAR* here in the USA that allows you to make unlimited POTS calls not only 'locally' but anywhere in the whole USA for an amount of time .. even solid connections for 24X7 ... for that same $12.95 U Dollars a year. A little over $1 a month!Where is this at?
YEp, there are those using the distinctive ring thing quite
successfully.
It was one of the things that carried us through the days of
expenses of operating a bbs and feeding our families <vbg> People
didn't have to worry (and still don't) about giving an extra dime to
the phone company. Even now with our calling plan, I can make it a
touch easier for nodes to stay connected to Fidonet by calling and
delivering their mail as soon as it comes in.
I'm debating whether I should do that eventually but even
that added expense right now ...
I"m working on something which spins off
Mike's comments here, but I"d like to see you go forward
with some more groundwork first in fg. THat's not for this
echo I guess <g.>
I dunno.. if it has to do with someone leaving what's not broke in
the Maximus code, it belongs hehe
Yup, understood, more in netmail, should already be on your
system as I crashed it to you.
Agree there... I played with the linux maximus code way back.. I
should pick it up again. When I switched drives here, I didn't
bother copying it over <g>.. this drive has tons of space so.. :)
THere ya go.
LIke you I can drop off mail whenever thanks to my calling
plan, one reason I offered a pots only without a feed one
recently, and it's been working out well for him I think.
Re: Funny code section
By: Mike Luther to Mvan Le on Thu Mar 25 2010 08:30 am
You can actually subscribe to a POTS phone service,
which is handled by IP
operations, for USD $12.95 a *YEAR* here in the USA
that allows you to make
unlimited POTS calls not only 'locally' but
anywhere in the whole USA for an
amount of time .. even solid connections for 24X7
... for that same $12.95 U
Dollars a year. A little over $1 a month!
Where is this at?
Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
MvLe> How much does it cost for you to make a local call ?
see above... nothing... why?
I think you'll find it is called Majic Jack.Oh, $19.99/yr, I have 2 actually... I was also thinking it was a POTS that
MvLe> How much does it cost for you to make a local call ?
see above... nothing... why?
Re: Funny code section
By: Mike Luther to John Guillory on Thu Mar 25 2010 11:01 pm
I think you'll find it is called Majic Jack.
Oh, $19.99/yr, I have 2 actually... I was also
thinking it was a POTS that allowed one to hook up
a modem to it and dial-out .... ;-) I'm actually
giving skype a try, the quality sounds better than
magic jack.... But for Majic Jack, you can buy a
thin-client off ebay that allows you to plug the
magic jack in and you don't have to worry about the
magic jack software running on your computer....
Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
The only case I can think of where it has been done is synchronet. However with the pots<->telnet gateway software it's possible to getThat is one of the reasons I left Synchronet and returned to Max. that use of shims under Linux gave me problems. I mean really, a agetty to a telnet connection is a real touchy thing. Never mind how Bob Swindell felt that maintaining a old school bbs interface was too old. We are talking about this same topic on the 2012forum.com. Rob Bast wants to consider upgrading from PhpBB to Vbulletin. No one wants to do that as people like the older ways of doing things. No one wanted the Adobe Shockwave flash. We want to be able to communicate.
POTS call. It just seems strange in some way, since we are used to
all BBS software has POTS support.
However with the pots<->telnet gateway software it's possible toget
POTS call. It just seems strange in some way, since we are used to
all BBS software has POTS support.
That is one of the reasons I left Synchronet and returned to Max. that MMD>use of shims under Linux gave me problems. I mean really, a agetty to a MMD>telnet connection is a real touchy thing. Never mind how Bob Swindell MMD>felt that maintaining a old school bbs interface was too old. We are MMD>talking about this same topic on the 2012forum.com. Rob Bast wants to MMD>consider upgrading from PhpBB to Vbulletin. No one wants to do that as MMD>people like the older ways of doing things. No one wanted the Adobe MMD>Shockwave flash. We want to be able to communicate.
Now as for dialup support. Keep it in! I NEED IT! as my bbs is both MMD>dialup and telnet.
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,042 |
Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
Uptime: | 145:13:02 |
Calls: | 500,263 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 95,201 |
D/L today: |
123 files (66,139K bytes) |
Messages: | 464,630 |