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

World: r3wp

[Core] Discuss core issues

BrianH
6-Apr-2007
[7409x2]
Nonetheless, the error I got with the port spec is the same that 
the VBScript from Microsoft's web site gets.
Any way to increase the timeout?
btiffin
6-Apr-2007
[7411]
You can try   port:  open  [spec]   insert port mold ['post stuff] 
 result: copy port  ???  the insert may need more....   {POST HTTP/1.1 
...  somesuch
Graham
6-Apr-2007
[7412]
yes
BrianH
6-Apr-2007
[7413]
And what would that way be? :)
btiffin
6-Apr-2007
[7414]
The command docs mention something about initiating ssl connections 
  with  port: open/direct  ssl://url:portnum  then a   set-modes 
port [secure: true]  to initiate authentication...
BrianH
6-Apr-2007
[7415]
Brian,

    read/custom [scheme: 'https host: "server" path: "path/to/stuff" 
    user: "username" pass: "password"]

works. I don't need to recreate the port scheme, as it does that 
secure: true in its code. I get the same error with Microsoft's VBScript 
fix. I think it's something server-side. Thanks for the help with 
the syntax though - it's been a while.
btiffin
6-Apr-2007
[7416x2]
There is a system/schemes/http/timeout field    probably the same 
for https
Yeah me too,  This is the kinda code that my brain treats as fire-and-forget. 
 Need to do it again...look it up again.  :)
BrianH
6-Apr-2007
[7418]
Timeout is ignored. Must be a server misconfiguration (just a guess 
based on how messed up this server is).
btiffin
6-Apr-2007
[7419]
There are threads in MS Tech net about 440 timeouts when Exchange 
enables Form Authentication.  All I've seen so far is Help Help messages, 
not fixes...


http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1110323&SiteID=17

Is one example.
BrianH
6-Apr-2007
[7420x2]
According to MS's blogs, the only way to enable Exchange's server-side 
junk mail folders is to do so through Outlook Web Access on a per-user 
basis. The only way they suggest to do so for all users is to post:

cmd=options
junkemailstate=1
cmd=savejunkemailrule


to every user, logging in as a domain administrator. They provide 
a 100+ line VBScript to do this for a list of names in a file. When 
that failed, I figured that I could do the same in 1 or 2 lines of 
REBOL, and I was correct: I get the same exact failure the VBScript 
gets in 1 line of REBOL :(
Interesting. That site you linked to seems to narrow this down to 
forms-based authentication, which is enabled om my server. I'm going 
to try temporarily disabling it and see if that helps.
btiffin
6-Apr-2007
[7422]
Drummm rollll
BrianH
6-Apr-2007
[7423]
Worked!
btiffin
6-Apr-2007
[7424x2]
Yippee...if you can disable FBA long term...

There may be a more permanent solution...I didn't read all of it.

http://www.chicagotech.net/exchange/owa440.htm
Brian;  Don't forget to post your REBOL solution to the place you 
got the VBScript.  :)
Henrik
8-Apr-2007
[7426x2]
doh! I'd been hunting a bug in LIST-VIEW all day and it turns out 
that Ladislav's BUILD function does funny stuff to paths:

>> build [append/only [] []]
== [append/unset [] []]
The solution seems to be:

>> build [only 'append/only [] []]
== [append/only [] []]
Gregg
8-Apr-2007
[7428x2]
Gotta watch those advanced libs. :-) The tricky stuff, like REBOL 
itself, often has a few things you have to trip over a couple times 
before setting a flag in your brain.
Thanks for the post on this. I haven't hit it, but I might someday.
ChristianE
8-Apr-2007
[7430x2]
If [APPEND/ONLY [] []] is what you were looking for to recieve with 
the help of BUILD, Henrik, BUILD/WITH [APPEND/ONLY [] []] [] works, 
too, and to me it seems to be a bit more intuitive.
But since BUILD [A/B [] []] gives [A/B [] []] as one would expect, 
I'd say this is a real bug in BUILD. You probably should let Ladislav 
know.
Gabriele
9-Apr-2007
[7432]
a path! is a kind of block!. so i guess BUILD is just recursing into 
paths. it's a bug but... it seems a cool feature to me instead. you 
can build paths ;)
Henrik
9-Apr-2007
[7433]
probably should be included in docs :-)
ChristianE
9-Apr-2007
[7434x2]
No, I'd say it's a bug, due to inconsistent behaviour:

>> build [append/only [] []]
== [append/unset [] []]

vs.

>> build [append/anything-other-than-only [] []]
== [append/anything-other-than-only [] []]
It's just the /only refinement producing the unexpected result.
Robert
9-Apr-2007
[7436x2]
How are the functions named to access the Windows Registry?
I need to read out a possible proxy config.
Oldes
9-Apr-2007
[7438]
http://www.rebol.com/docs/sdk/registry.html
Gregg
9-Apr-2007
[7439]
The reg funcs get unset in *some* versions of REBOL,so make sure 
they're available in the one you use.
Robert
9-Apr-2007
[7440x3]
Hm... in my version these functions are unset. I use REBFACE to start 
a script.
And it shows that the "Windows Registry Access" stuff is loaded. 
I use 2.7.5
Any idea what to do?
Gregg
9-Apr-2007
[7443x2]
1) Go back to an older version.
2) Look at calling the registry APIs directly
3) Tell Carl we need them back. :-)
The Roxy setup toolkit uses them, so I'm still encapping installers 
with some really old version of REBOL.
Pekr
9-Apr-2007
[7445]
hmm, I can't find them even in 1.2.8, nor 1.2.1
Robert
9-Apr-2007
[7446]
Hmm... ok. I drop him a note and see what happens. Otherwise I have 
to use registry.r from rebol.org
Pekr
9-Apr-2007
[7447]
dunno why those were removed? I do understand it for plug-in, but 
normal View?
Gregg
9-Apr-2007
[7448x3]
I think security was the issue, but they should still be available 
in the SDK in any case.
I think I use 1.2.48 to use them.
Yup, that's the one.
Pekr
9-Apr-2007
[7451]
there are some funcs in the sdk, but for install kind of purpose, 
association etc., but those all are just wrappers around natives, 
which are unset. So - how can we have their sources, if reg* functions 
are natives? :-)
Gabriele
9-Apr-2007
[7452]
Christian, that's because "only" is a keyword for build. [append/only 
[] []] is for build the same as [[append only] [] []]. I agree it's 
a bug, however I'd be tempted to leave it as-is ;)
ChristianE
9-Apr-2007
[7453]
Ah, ok, you wouldn't know from HELP BUILD but it's in the script's 
comment. So it's kind of an "intended bug", I see that now ;-)
Ladislav
9-Apr-2007
[7454x5]
it is not bug, totally intended. If you are afraid of INS and ONLY 
keywords, you have to use the /WITH refinement
maybe I should use a less usual word instead of 'only ? 'ins seems 
to be less conflicting, since nobody uses it for "normal" purposes
anyway, when you use the /with refinement, you are totally safe, 
since it is you who specifies the keywords
regarding the path processing - I did that intentionally - the processed 
"parts" are: block! | paren! | path! | set-path! | lit-path! as you 
can see from the source
is there a request to leave something out?