Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool

[Alexander Schmolck]

Re: Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: gui issues

Stephen Boulet <stephendotboul et@motorola_._c om> writes:
[color=blue]
> I see that allout.el is supplied with xemacs for windows. How does it get
> activated?[/color]

First try adding this to your .emacs :

(require 'allout)
(outline-init t)

Then try opening either a file with the ending .outl (for "traditiona l"
outlined text) or the allout.el file (for source code that contains outline
comments).

Once you opened allout.el, try typing this to get a quick feel:

C-cC-a C-cC-a
n n n n p s n h h h

Not so bad for navigating, is it?

'as

[JanC]

Re: Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion

Stephen Horne <steve@ninereed s.fsnet.co.uk> schreef:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:59:20 GMT, JanC <usenet_spam@ja nc.invalid>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>One question: why not let people do this "confirmati on" through email
>>instead of requiring them to start a separate program? Something like a
>>mailing list confirmation mail?[/color]
>
> If the approval is via e-mail then you have to accept e-mail from
> unknown people in order to recieve the approval requests in the first
> place. That means you still recieve the spam.
>
> Of course you could make up some scheme with a standard subject line
> that is recognised as an authorisation request.[/color]

You can use pseudo-random codes, just like mailing lists do...

--
JanC

"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9

[Peter Hansen]

Re: Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion

Terry Reedy wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I am somewhat flabbergasted that more people do not see the oddity of
> "I will not read your first message (yet) but I will read a second
> message from you in which you attempt to give me a reason that I find
> 'acceptible', according to my unknown-to-you whims, that I do read
> your first message."[/color]

I completely agree with you on this subject Terry. The whole approach
is extremely misguided and discourteous, especially in the light of this
being about information that should have been welcomed by Edward.

I'm using TMDA right now, which is remotely similar but doesn't
require the "reason", just a real mailbox and a living person or
an autoresponder.. . even so, this whole thing is starting to make
me rethink even that approach.

-Peter

[Brad Clements]

Re: Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion


"Peter Hansen" <peter@engcorp. com> wrote in message
news:3FBA3FDA.C 5385A9C@engcorp .com...
[color=blue]
> Terry Reedy wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > I am somewhat flabbergasted that more people do not see the oddity of
> > "I will not read your first message (yet) but I will read a second
> > message from you in which you attempt to give me a reason that I find
> > 'acceptible', according to my unknown-to-you whims, that I do read
> > your first message."[/color][/color]

Where did his message say this? I went through the web confirmation thingy
and I don't recall the original response message saying what you quoted
above, or even anything remotely close to that at all.
[color=blue]
> I'm using TMDA right now, which is remotely similar but doesn't
> require the "reason", just a real mailbox and a living person or
> an autoresponder.. . even so, this whole thing is starting to make
> me rethink even that approach.
>
> -Peter[/color]

What's the difference between TMDA and what Edward is using? Email vs. a Web
confirmation. While I prefer simply replying to an email message, I don't
see *that* much difference between the two.

[Peter Hansen]

Re: Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion

Brad Clements wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Peter Hansen" <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:[color=green]
> > I'm using TMDA right now, which is remotely similar but doesn't
> > require the "reason", just a real mailbox and a living person or
> > an autoresponder.. . even so, this whole thing is starting to make
> > me rethink even that approach.[/color]
>
> What's the difference between TMDA and what Edward is using? Email vs. a Web
> confirmation. While I prefer simply replying to an email message, I don't
> see *that* much difference between the two.[/color]

TMDA does not ask for justification (as in a written explanation of why
I should read your mail). It is merely a means of verifying that you
sent me the email with a real reply address (i.e. one capable of getting
mail back to something which is capable of replying back again...) In
other words, there is a real email account associated with the email,
and if it's spam I can complain to your service provider and have your
account pulled.

The difference is at least one of degree of convenience: with TMDA you
just hit "Reply" to the confirmation request, *ONCE ONLY*, and after
that you are free to send as many emails as you like (until I get upset
and blacklist you, perhaps :-). You never have to justify why you
think I should spend my time reading your email. Sure, I might not
actually read it anyway, but at least it's a token amount of your
time, once ever, to confirm to my server that you really exist.

(Not sure about EK's web-based tool: does it require justification
for each message, or only once, the first time you send him one?)

And if you are about to make the point that yes, it's just a matter
of degree, but that I'm still imposing on those trying to communicate
with me: well, I did say I was starting to rethink even TMDA, didn't I?

My rethinking so far has been to check the stats: yesterday I received
182 messages for which confirmation requests were sent out. So far, none
have received replies. I have also received about 50 real emails, none of
which required confirmations because they were all long since added
to my "confirmed" list. Yesterday was a little exceptional, in that I
received only one spam. Normally about three or four slip through, but
I haven't been diligent about keeping my blacklist up to date so that
those spammers (who actually use real accounts) are blocked.

I think that might be as far as my rethinking gets me, for now. :-(

-Peter

[Terry Reedy]

Re: Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion


"Brad Clements" <bkc@Murkworks. com> wrote in message
news:mailman.88 8.1069253598.70 2.python-list@python.org ...
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Terry Reedy wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > I am somewhat flabbergasted that more people do not see the[/color][/color][/color]
oddity of[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > "I will not read your first message (yet) but I will read a[/color][/color][/color]
second[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > message from you in which you attempt to give me a reason that I[/color][/color][/color]
find[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > 'acceptible', according to my unknown-to-you whims, that I do[/color][/color][/color]
read[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > your first message."[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Where did his message say this? I went through the web confirmation[/color]
thingy[color=blue]
> and I don't recall the original response message saying what you[/color]
quoted[color=blue]
> above, or even anything remotely close to that at all.[/color]

The above is a paraphrase designed to expose the essence of what I see
as an oddity. The key words 'acceptable' 'reason' are direct quotes
from the original message, which I quoted in full in my original
message (Nov 9, when I very briefly stated my objection reason). Here
is the response message again..

---"""
You recently sent a message to me at the email address
edreamleo@chart er.net. To help cope with the ever increasing volume of
junk e-mail, I am using ChoiceMail, a permission-based e-mail
filtering tool. Your original e-mail is being held by ChoiceMail until
you complete the following simple one-time process.
Please click on the link
[Click here to request approval]
When your browser opens, fill in your name and a short reason for
wanting to send e-mail to me. If your reason is acceptable, your first
email and all subsequent e-mails from you will be delivered to me
normally.
"""---

On Nov 13, in response to questions about my briefly stated objection,
I noted that my reasons had nothing to do with EReam or Leo per se and
then explained them in some detail. The paraphrase, which still looks
pretty accurate to me, was part of that long post and might be better
understood in context.
[color=blue]
> What's the difference between TMDA and what Edward is using?
> Email vs. a Web confirmation.
> While I prefer simply replying to an email message, I don't
> see *that* much difference between the two.[/color]

Some differences explained in the Nov 13 post:
1. Complete interaction with original system (email) versus requiring
access to another system (web browser) which sender might not have
immediately available or even at all.
2. Confirm authorship of original message versus give 'reason [that]
is acceptible' that it should be read.
3. Keep interaction more or less private versus involve commercial
third party.

We may, of course, disagree on the importance of these even if we
agree that they are accurate.

Terry J. Reedy