World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
Dockimbel 31-Dec-2008 [3674] | It's documented here : http://www.rebol.com/docs/core25.html#sect1.2.3. |
BrianH 31-Dec-2008 [3675x2] | That sounds interesting. I look forward to reading the source for that :) |
(in Cheyenne I mean) | |
Graham 31-Dec-2008 [3677] | so, no-delay = true, nagle is operational? |
BrianH 31-Dec-2008 [3678] | That would be no-delay = false. |
Dockimbel 31-Dec-2008 [3679x2] | I'll say the opposite. |
Right, no-delay = false => nagle in use | |
Will 31-Dec-2008 [3681] | BrianH: do you have a list of patches to apply to R2.7.6 ? |
Dockimbel 31-Dec-2008 [3682x3] | I've just put the [web-public] flag back. |
BrianH: about EXTRACT, there's no bug in 2.7.6 I'm aware of, it causes a regression on Cheyenne only because the old EXTRACT was wrongly returning a block! value when taking a hash! value as input. | |
That regression is fixed in Cheyenne 0.9.19. | |
BrianH 31-Dec-2008 [3685x2] | I will be maintaining a patch script for 2.7.6, though it is not yet online. All of the patches are in DevBase for now. |
No patch-in-place though - replacement functions. | |
Graham 5-Jan-2009 [3687] | doc, were you going to rambo this 'no-delay issue? |
Dockimbel 5-Jan-2009 [3688x2] | I thought that you would do that just before sending your laptop to Carl. ;-) |
I'll fill a new ticket right now. | |
Graham 5-Jan-2009 [3690] | Is this going to affect Cheyenne much? It's not as though cheyenne would be sending lots of small packets to clients anyway. |
Dockimbel 5-Jan-2009 [3691] | I think that the performance difference won't be noticeable. |
Graham 5-Jan-2009 [3692] | In the meantime I can use this way to shut down Cheyenne locally when my program exits :) |
Dockimbel 5-Jan-2009 [3693] | What Vista version are you using? SP1? |
Graham 5-Jan-2009 [3694x2] | No SP installed ... no room on my hard drive to install :( |
Gosh ... rambo is full of spam submissions. | |
Dockimbel 5-Jan-2009 [3696x2] | You should ping Gabriele about that. |
RAMBO ticket filled (#-4313) | |
Gabriele 5-Jan-2009 [3698] | Rambo is always full of spam submissions. I clean it up daily. :) |
Graham 5-Jan-2009 [3699] | I'm guessing some elementary captcha code would cut down your work considerably! |
Oldes 5-Jan-2009 [3700] | It was discussed many times. I would use javascript to hide (enter) the form. It so easy. Just use document.write("<input name='submit' value='submit' type='submit'>"); where the input is as pure html. Better as external javascript. so the spambot parser does not see it without js evaluation (which are most such a spambots) |
Maxim 5-Jan-2009 [3701] | good idea, you don't even get the submits to start with :-) |
NickA 6-Jan-2009 [3702x2] | Have you tried http://softinnov.org/rebol/captcha.shtml? |
We were getting tormented by spam at http://guitarz.org/pappgmembers/index.cgi . At one point I needed an immediate bandaid, so temporarily added a several-line cgi that just told the user to type "pappg" as the password, and then checked that they entered it correctly. We've never had another problem since :) Makes me think that a catchpa would handle a lot of grief. | |
Sunanda 6-Jan-2009 [3704] | You need a variety of techniques to stop all the spambots (and the human-assisted spambots). Another technique is to have a hidden (by CSS) field, that humans don't see. If it comes back with a (changed) value, then most probably a bot is at work. |
NickA 6-Jan-2009 [3705] | Our bots weren't the brightest :) |
Reichart 6-Jan-2009 [3706] | Sunanda, cute trick (as long as on mobile devices the CSS is not thrown away , which happens more and more now a days). |
Graham 6-Jan-2009 [3707x2] | I suggested in the past a REBOL based question. |
something which requires natural language interpretation. | |
Gabriele 6-Jan-2009 [3709] | Graham: except for scanning for actual legit tickets, it takes me a couple seconds to delete those (a few keypresses after logging in to rebol.net), so it's not much of an issue. i have to log in to rebol.net daily anyway in order to log in to mail.rebol.net (only accessible from there) and check the free space (only ~1GB left on the disk). so we'd have to solve both problems at once for me to not have to worry about those machines. :) |
Graham 6-Jan-2009 [3710] | If you prevented those spam tickets, you wouldn't have to worry about space! :) |
Gabriele 6-Jan-2009 [3711] | www.rebol.net and mail.rebol.net are different machines. it's not the rambo spam that's filling mail :) |
Sunanda 6-Jan-2009 [3712x2] | Reichart -- part of the hidden text needs to be a label that says something like "please leave this blank" Then nothing can go wrong .... :-) |
Oops -- Sorry, DocKimbel. We're off-topic here. There is already a separate (and less public) group for this topic.....If we have more to say, let's continue in: Bad Bots | |
Will 6-Jan-2009 [3714] | I have a very easy trick that works for preventing spam in forms but it needs aiax, no captcha, nothing to enter, ping me if interested |
BrianH 9-Jan-2009 [3715x2] | I was just reading about SCGI today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Common_Gateway_Interface Would there be an advantage to implementing this in Cheyenne? |
It's basically a simplified, non-multiplexed alternative to FastCGI. It seems to me that it may have less overhead. | |
Pekr 9-Jan-2009 [3717] | having fast-cgi would be fine. But - fast-cgi does not have sense for Cheyenne, no? Hmm, maybe it does, when you use e.g. php ... |
BrianH 9-Jan-2009 [3718] | Cheyenne has FastCGI already, and uses it to call PHP.. |
Anton 11-Jan-2009 [3719] | Excuse me if I'm wrong, but "Accept-Ranges: bytes" is not implemented. Can this be done ? I've just tried to resume a file from Henrik's server, and noticed that it has "Accept-Ranges: none". I know this means the web server is advertising "you can't resume!" My download client can use this information to avoid trying to resume, but it would be even better if the server allowed me to resume too :-) |
Dockimbel 11-Jan-2009 [3720] | See the roadmap at http://www.cheyenne-server.org/roadmap.shtml(at 1.x section). |
Anton 11-Jan-2009 [3721x3] | Byte-Ranges -- way down the roadmap list after big-sounding items :-() I have to wait. No problem. |
(Hmm... isn't it pretty easy, though ?) | |
(I didn't say that - of course it isn't as simple as it seems on the surface..) | |
older newer | first last |