php-general-digest-helplists.php.net
Date: Sun Aug 13 2006 - 13:32:55 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

php-general Digest 13 Aug 2006 18:32:55 -0000 Issue 4291

Topics (messages 240596 through 240600):

Re: SETCOOKIE
        240596 by: Peter Lauri

Re: New Large Scale Project.
        240597 by: Wesley Acheson

Re: OT? Verifying mail was received
        240598 by: tedd

PHP 4.4.4RC1 released
        240599 by: Derick Rethans

Re: Internet Explorer doesn't display UTF-8 page using UTF-8 encoding
        240600 by: tedd

Administrivia:

To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
        php-general-digest-subscribelists.php.net

To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
        php-general-digest-unsubscribelists.php.net

To post to the list, e-mail:
        php-generallists.php.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------

attached mail follows:

[snip]

On Sat, August 12, 2006 8:00 am, Peter Lauri wrote:
> When you just use time() you tell the cookie to just live until now,
> so it
> dies directly. You have to add some seconds to determine how long the
> cookie
> will live.

Unfortunately, no...

The above solution relies on the USER computer clock being set correctly.

[/snip]

This is interesting. Because you set the time as the Server time, it will
then just assume that the time is the same. However, is the system not that
smart that it do translate the time when being sent (timestamp and expire
time sent the same way, or just the number of seconds that the cookie will
be alive from.

If this is correct, what will happen if the server is in a different time
zone?

Best regards,
Peter

attached mail follows:

Its not actually a dating site. :)
However it does look like the site that you have given has some
intresting resources.

Thanks for your time.

Regards,

Wes

On 8/13/06, tedd <teddsperling.com> wrote:
> >I'm looking to do a fairly large scale project.
> >
> >The problem is I don't know how much of it to write myself how much I
> >could get away with using existing components (modified as necessary).
> >
> >Basically the different areas I would need are authentication,
> >galleries (for images), permission levels. Internal messaging (not
> >real time), forums (hopefully I can just plugin an existing one but
> >intregrated with my new so that registering users for the site
> >registers for the forum and vice versa, also I would like each new
> >gallery entry to create a new forum entry for that image). Comments,
> >ratings and such like. Sales (This would have to be a script written
> >elsewhere, I am in no way confident when it comes to dealing with
> >sensitve info like credit card details.) etc. etc.
> >
> >My other problem is even though I'm confident coding I find design
> >very difficult I've a good idea of how the website would work but only
> >in general terms.
> >
> >Out of the box mambo or drupal doesn't seem to do what I want really
> >(obviously) but maybe they would give a good foundation in which to
> >plugin my own building blocks, has anyone tried this?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Wes
>
> Wes:
>
> I don't know if you would consider this or not, but it's an idea.
> Please don't hammer me if I'm off-base.
>
> It sounds like you may be writing a dating script, if so check out:
>
> http://tufat.com/
>
> The "osDateSkins" -- if nothing else, the designs are interesting.
>
> hth's
>
> tedd
>
> --
> -------
> http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
>

attached mail follows:

At 4:24 PM -0500 8/12/06, Richard Lynch wrote:
>On Thu, August 10, 2006 9:59 pm, tedd wrote:
>> Not a php solution, but send them all a buck via PayPal. For $90
>> you'll learn if their email addresses are correct.
>
>This assumes a much higher market penetration for PayPal than it has,
>I think...

I don't think penetration is at issue here. The point was to have
PayPal send the emails with a buck enticement -- similar to sending
first class mail -- if the address is wrong, you'll get your mail
back saying so.

>I know I definitely would not get the email from PayPal, much less the
>$1, because I gave up on PayPal ages and ages ago.
>
>Not because of any inherent problem with PayPal itself, but because
>the sheer volume of phishing/spam claiming to be PayPal made it
>impossible to find the legitimate PayPal traffic, which made PayPal
>useless to me.

Different strokes for different folks. I've had very good experience
with PayPal personally and with selling things via several sites
world wide -- it works for me.

And while phishing is a problem with almost all banking, inspection
of the sending url and knowing what PayPal *would and would not do*
makes is easy for me to separate legitimate correspondence from spam.
Furthermore, it appears that PayPal (unlike most online-banking) has
a spam reporting process that is pretty effective in combating that
sort of thing.

I'm not sure what I would do without PayPal.

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

attached mail follows:

Hello!

PHP 4.4.4RC1 has been packaged and can be found here:

- http://downloads.php.net/derick/php-4.4.4RC1.tar.bz2
  MD5 (php-4.4.4RC1.tar.bz2) = bb89d67c3a011229adea6c31aae6751b
- http://downloads.php.net/derick/php-4.4.4RC1.tar.gz
  MD5 (php-4.4.4RC1.tar.gz) = 13d41fcc56bb5e164c488575a0b96e59
- http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-4.4.4RC1-Win32.zip

This release is intended to address a series of security issues. Aside
from security fixes there are virtually no other changes in this release
compared to PHP 4.4.43. Please give this version a try to see if
everything is still working properly. If all is well, final will be
released within a week (next Thursday), most likely along with PHP
5.1.5.

regards,
Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

attached mail follows:

At 6:48 PM -0700 8/12/06, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>By the way, everyone should be setting a charset. If you don't set
>it, IE will look at the first 4k of the body of the page and take a
>wild guess.
>
>-Rasmus

-Rasmus:

Ok, but why doesn't w3c use it?

http://validator.w3.org/ (check source)

I'm not sure what to do re charset. I've been told by credible
sources to "always use it" and "never use it" -- which is correct?
Or, is this one of those "it depends" things?

tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]