html-helper-mode is on savannah

As many noticed, http://www.gest.unipd.it/~saint has gone 404.

The new homepage for html-helper-mode is 

http://www.nongnu.org/baol-hth/index.html

Being on savannah means that people wishing to joing the fun can do so :).

the 3.0.4 jolly version should be back on line soon.

 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico e fancazzista 
\/

Custom Major Mode!

RE: Custom Major Mode!

Re: Custom Major Mode!

Re: Custom Major Mode!

"Praveen Kumar R  - CTD, Chennai." <praveenk <at> ctd.hcltech.com> writes:

> I am using XEmacs 21.4 on Windows 2000 Professional. I work on a
> custom assembly language which has a major mode to support
> highlighting
> and indentation written with elisp. It is in the Solaris
> environment. I downloaded that elisp file to my local machine. How
> do I make
> XEmacs to use this mode for the files with extension '.s'? Will the
> same elisp file work on Windows without any modification?

Try this in your .emacs:

(setq auto-mode-alist (cons '("\\.s$" . asm-mode) auto-mode-alist))
--

-- 
Thanks,
Jeff

Re: spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only

 dv> Yes.  Though what I wrote is unambiguous with respect to
 dv> Michael's issue, when I wrote that I had configured the list "to
 dv> restrict posting to subscribers only" "without moderation", I was
 dv> oversimplifying a bit.  It is still an unmoderated list for
 dv> subscribers; and anyone can subscribe.  However, a post from an
 dv> account which is not subscribed _is_ moderated unless the account
 dv> is on a list of non-subscribers whose posts are to be accepted

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill  <bill <at> carpenter.ORG> writes:

 Bill> Publicly visible lists which do not have a "members only"
 Bill> posting restriction are just a more focused form of an open
 Bill> SMTP relay.  It's a modest pain to make someone subscribe to a
 Bill> list just to post to it, but it's way below my threshold of
 Bill> "pain that matters".

I am not so sure about this.  The SPAMMERS are very clever.  They can
use a subscription to harvest poster email addresses and then forge
SPAMs with these from addresses.  I don't see how "From" addresses are
such a good form of authentication.

However, the bulk of present spam should be averted by David method. I
understand Michael's argument, but I think that the net benefit to
the list is on David's side at the moment.  What expert is going to
listen to a mailing list full of spam to help the newcomers?  If
spammers start to subvert this mechanism, then it should be
reconsidered.

fwiw,
Bill Pringlemeir.

heading a large file

I need to edit large files occasionally (approximately 1.1 GB) and I 
would appreciate a pointer to any Emacs packages that might help. 
Splitting files to components of less than 7 MB each creates just too 
many pieces.  I would prefer to keep things in one contiguous chunk if 
possible.

what I'm doing is repairing (&^*&%*$) mbx mailboxes.  I'm converting the 
mail server to maildir as soon as humanly possible but it will be at 
least another month or two before I can and I need to edit large files 
now. (apologies for the grumpies)

thanks in advance.

---eric

--

-- 
Speech recognition in use.  Incorrect endings, words, and case is
closer than it appears

Re: spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only

Bill Pringlemeir wrote:

  >  Bill> Publicly visible lists which do not have a "members only"
>  Bill> posting restriction are just a more focused form of an open
>  Bill> SMTP relay.  It's a modest pain to make someone subscribe to a
>  Bill> list just to post to it, but it's way below my threshold of
>  Bill> "pain that matters".
> 
> I am not so sure about this.  The SPAMMERS are very clever.  They can
> use a subscription to harvest poster email addresses and then forge
> SPAMs with these from addresses.  I don't see how "From" addresses are
> such a good form of authentication.
> 
> However, the bulk of present spam should be averted by David method. I
> understand Michael's argument, but I think that the net benefit to
> the list is on David's side at the moment.  What expert is going to
> listen to a mailing list full of spam to help the newcomers?  If
> spammers start to subvert this mechanism, then it should be
> reconsidered.

spammers may be very clever but they can also be very dumb.  I converted 
all of my mailing lists to the members only white list and I have had 
very little problems with spam coming through.  It's not perfect and I 
think that had one breakthrough in two years but it's better than most.

I'm believe my work with sender pays[1] systems will pay off and provide 
a more robust barrier.  look for initial announcements in the next 
couple weeks on its fresh meat.

---eric

[1] and yes, it won't hurt mailing lists.

--

-- 
Speech recognition in use.  Incorrect endings, words, and case is
closer than it appears

Re: spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only

On Monday, January 05, "Eric S. Johansson" <esj <at> harvee.org> wrote:
>spammers may be very clever but they can also be very dumb.  I converted
>all of my mailing lists to the members only white list and I have had
>very little problems with spam coming through.  It's not perfect and I
>think that had one breakthrough in two years but it's better than most.

They may be clever, but I think they are also lazy.  I
do not think it is easy to automate the joining of
lists for the purpose of spamming them.  It might be
worth it for a very large list; but I do not think
this one really has the right kinds of 'customers'.

On Monday, January 05, "Bill Pringlemeir" <bpringlemeir <at> mistwireless.com> wrote:
>However, the bulk of present spam should be averted by David method. I
>understand Michael's argument, but I think that the net benefit to
>the list is on David's side at the moment.  What expert is going to
>listen to a mailing list full of spam to help the newcomers?  If
>spammers start to subvert this mechanism, then it should be
>reconsidered.

If anything, the rate of the spam has actually
increased.  I have already rejected well over 2 dozen
pieces since I started moderating posts from
non-members.  Fortunately it is easy to add legitimate
senders like Eric by just checking a box when
approving a post.  (There is also a checkbox to reject
future posts from the sender without moderation, but
that is not helpful since the spammers tend to forge
unique sender addresses.)

Regards,
  David V.

Re: spam problem, moderation [sic] enabled, members only

David Vanderschel wrote:
> They may be clever, but I think they are also lazy.  I
> do not think it is easy to automate the joining of
> lists for the purpose of spamming them.  It might be
> worth it for a very large list; but I do not think
> this one really has the right kinds of 'customers'.

that is a better way of putting it.  Clever but lazy.  I like that. 
Mind if I file off the serial numbers?

but in terms of what is worth it, when it becomes worth it, they would 
be far better served to sit on the list, sniff addresses of public 
posters and then forge their way onto the list using those addresses.  2 
in 1.  Denial of reputation as well as spamming the entire list.  (Only 
slightly tongue in cheek)

  > If anything, the rate of the spam has actually
> increased.  

according to Berry Schein (president of the world), spam has climbed 
approximately 70 percent in the last year.  the only time I noticed the 
increase is when I do some statistics on the spam dumpster.  Then I 
noticed I wait forever as Linux beats the disk into a pulp going after 
all the messages.

> Fortunately it is easy to add legitimate
> senders like Eric by just checking a box when
> approving a post. 

legitimate?  Well, that might be going a bit far.  Try lazy sod who 
hasn't updated his subscription address since his domain changed.

I got most of them...



---eric

--

-- 
Speech recognition in use.  Incorrect endings, words, and case is
closer than it appears