| 01:28.13 | *** join/#uphpu wps (n=wade@65.73.113.199) |
| 01:28.17 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 01:37.44 | *** join/#uphpu synic (n=synic@pdpc/supporter/student/synic) |
| 01:46.42 | RyanE | does anyone know javascript's 'match' RE syntax very well? |
| 01:47.15 | RyanE | I'm trying to modify book burro to indicate if the current book is available at the local Library |
| 01:48.00 | mindjuju | i've used match in JS |
| 01:48.06 | mindjuju | what are you trying to do? |
| 01:48.18 | RyanE | I'm trying to pull out a single string from within an HTML result set. |
| 01:48.31 | RyanE | i.e. search for an ISBN inside the HTML, and return it into a var. |
| 01:48.37 | RyanE | but I'm not a RE guy. |
| 01:49.03 | mindjuju | k, so are we searching for a string that starts with ISBN and ends with a white space? |
| 01:49.13 | RyanE | yeah, anywhere in the results. |
| 01:49.44 | RyanE | it could also have <font blah blah>ISBN</font> after it, but mainly, I just want to know if it's found. |
| 01:50.00 | mindjuju | k, give me a sec |
| 01:50.09 | RyanE | the page I'm looking for it in is: http://70.58.97.116/TLCScripts/interpac.dll?Browse&Config=PAC&SearchType=3&SearchField=4096&SearchData=078670621x |
| 01:50.33 | RyanE | and for example, I want to find the 078670621x ISBN from the results. |
| 01:52.09 | mindjuju | oh wait, is it |
| 01:52.17 | mindjuju | number then ISBN or ISBN then number? |
| 01:52.23 | mindjuju | oh , isee |
| 01:52.27 | mindjuju | num then isbn |
| 01:52.27 | mindjuju | k |
| 01:52.31 | RyanE | yep |
| 01:52.35 | RyanE | with crap in the middle, possibly. |
| 01:55.14 | mindjuju | k, so this is an example of a string that your going to want, right? |
| 01:55.15 | mindjuju | <td colspan="3" align="left" valign="top" width="100%">078670621X <font color=FF0000>ISBN</font></td> |
| 01:55.22 | RyanE | yep. |
| 01:55.52 | RyanE | the strange thing is, if I just tell match '0786', it's returning null. I thought it should return the part that it matched. |
| 01:56.06 | RyanE | so I'm wondering if the match is wrong, or if the data returned is wrong... |
| 01:56.10 | RyanE | prior to the match. |
| 01:59.52 | RyanE | mindjuju: I think this may be a wild goose chase. I'm now testing match by manually setting my search string, and it's doing what I thought it should, so I think the error is not in my call to match. |
| 01:59.58 | RyanE | duh. thanks anyway. |
| 02:00.31 | mindjuju | no worries, let me know if i can help |
| 02:00.34 | RyanE | thanks. |
| 03:06.23 | *** join/#uphpu synic (n=synic@c-67-177-16-249.hsd1.ut.comcast.net) |
| 07:11.47 | *** join/#uphpu cycokilr (i=cycokilr@c-67-166-121-149.hsd1.ut.comcast.net) |
| 07:22.16 | *** join/#uphpu RyanE_ (n=ryan@rberick.dsl.xmission.com) |
| 14:15.54 | *** join/#uphpu synic (n=synic@67.177.16.249) |
| 14:42.56 | *** join/#uphpu wps (n=wade@66.237.80.85) |
| 14:42.59 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 14:46.28 | *** join/#uphpu RyanE (n=ryan@rberick.dsl.xmission.com) |
| 14:46.54 | dataw0lf | Hm |
| 14:46.57 | dataw0lf | I hate Sendmail |
| 14:47.28 | dataw0lf | Why would sendmail be resolving a hostname to a different ip than what the box is? I thought sendmail would use the same nameserver that was in the resolv.conf |
| 15:09.11 | RyanE | dataw0lf: does the site have an MX record that's different than the main domain? |
| 15:09.42 | RyanE | I believe it uses MX record first, then falls back to CNAME and A records. |
| 15:09.59 | dataw0lf | MX record is correct |
| 15:10.10 | RyanE | what's the domain? |
| 15:11.04 | dataw0lf | horrocks.com |
| 15:12.47 | dataw0lf | it's not mine, I'm just trying to get ahold of these guys |
| 15:13.02 | RyanE | yeah. figured that. |
| 15:13.18 | RyanE | other than not having reverse DNS setup to point back to horrocks.com, it looks OK. |
| 15:13.31 | dataw0lf | yeah. |
| 15:13.32 | dataw0lf | dataw0lf horrocks.com |
| 15:13.32 | dataw0lf | dataw0lf it's not mine, I'm just trying to get ahold of these guys |
| 15:13.32 | dataw0lf | RyanE yeah. figured that. |
| 15:13.33 | dataw0lf | RyanE other than not having reverse DNS setup to point back to horrocks.com, it looks OK. |
| 15:13.35 | dataw0lf | ugh |
| 15:13.44 | dataw0lf | need to stop highlighting what I read |
| 15:13.47 | dataw0lf | <PROTECTED> |
| 15:13.48 | RyanE | yeah. figured that. : |
| 15:13.52 | dataw0lf | there's the log from /var/maillog |
| 15:14.14 | dataw0lf | [209.254.43.67] |
| 15:14.28 | dataw0lf | that's incorrect |
| 15:14.32 | dataw0lf | and I need to know where sendmail is getting that from |
| 15:15.07 | dataw0lf | I have a sneaking suspicion it's fungus's fault. |
| 15:16.11 | RyanE | reverse on 209.254.43.67 *is* mail.horrocks.com. strange. |
| 15:16.26 | dataw0lf | that's their old network |
| 15:16.55 | RyanE | how long since their change, I wonder. Maybe they have a very long TTL in a nameserver in your path. |
| 15:16.55 | dataw0lf | since June |
| 15:17.04 | RyanE | now THAT would be a long TTL... |
| 15:17.07 | dataw0lf | yeah |
| 15:17.19 | dataw0lf | I could add them to /etc/hostname |
| 15:17.25 | dataw0lf | err /etc/hosts |
| 15:17.33 | dataw0lf | but I want to figure out the real problem |
| 15:17.56 | dataw0lf | but, I probably should do that fix for right now |
| 15:17.58 | RyanE | yeah. I don't know how reverse mapping from an old address could mess up the 'forward' mapping. doesn't make sense. |
| 15:21.45 | dataw0lf | I just think it's getting an old domain server from somewhere |
| 15:21.50 | dataw0lf | but I don't know where! |
| 15:23.14 | macnewbold | that's really odd |
| 15:24.07 | dataw0lf | yeah |
| 15:24.16 | dataw0lf | it's happening on two different domains actually |
| 15:24.38 | macnewbold | I just checked both dns servers for the domain, |
| 15:24.38 | dataw0lf | but I just did the quick hack, and I'm going to talk to fungus when he gets in to see if it might be on Aros end somewhere. |
| 15:24.38 | macnewbold | and they're working |
| 15:24.51 | macnewbold | and both giving consistent/correct results |
| 15:26.34 | dataw0lf | heh |
| 15:26.39 | dataw0lf | and here it works with my /etc/hosts fix |
| 15:26.40 | dataw0lf | Oct 13 08:20:18 mx sendmail[24869]: j9DEKH0H024864: to=<brent@horrocks.com>, ctladdr=<jsimpson@aero-graphics.com> (50483/50486), delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, pri=120621, relay=mail.horrocks.com. [67.137.30.147], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (Requested mail action okay, completed) |
| 15:26.51 | dataw0lf | which would make you think it is something with my domain servers |
| 15:26.52 | dataw0lf | yet |
| 15:27.05 | dataw0lf | [root@mx log]# nslookup mail.horrocks.com |
| 15:27.06 | dataw0lf | Server: 198.60.22.2 |
| 15:27.06 | dataw0lf | Address: 198.60.22.2#53 |
| 15:27.06 | dataw0lf | Non-authoritative answer: |
| 15:27.07 | dataw0lf | Name: mail.horrocks.com |
| 15:27.07 | dataw0lf | Address: 67.137.30.147 |
| 15:27.11 | dataw0lf | *boggle* |
| 15:27.28 | dataw0lf | I've never seen anything like this before. |
| 15:27.30 | dataw0lf | This is why I hate DNS. |
| 15:29.00 | dataw0lf | and here's the other one I'm having problems with. |
| 15:29.10 | dataw0lf | maillog.2:Oct 2 03:56:51 mx sendmail[23728]: j8TEwYqh003973: to=<brussell@toengrco.com>, ctladdr=<kfrancis@aero-graphics.com> (511/514), delay=2+18:58:17, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, pri=6179402, relay=mail.toengrco.com., dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection refused by mail.toengrco.com. |
| 15:29.18 | dataw0lf | I'm going to see if the /etc/hosts hack works for that too |
| 15:29.26 | *** join/#uphpu synic (n=synic@66.239.17.226.ptr.us.xo.net) |
| 15:31.39 | dataw0lf | hory crap |
| 15:31.41 | dataw0lf | it looks like it did |
| 15:31.43 | dataw0lf | w |
| 15:31.44 | dataw0lf | t |
| 15:31.44 | dataw0lf | h |
| 15:38.57 | macnewbold | what IP was it triyng to hit for toengrco.com? |
| 15:39.08 | macnewbold | that just says cnxn refused |
| 15:39.19 | macnewbold | what OS is your sendmail on? |
| 15:39.46 | dataw0lf | Linux |
| 15:40.12 | dataw0lf | right, connection refused would most likely mean they switched ips too |
| 15:40.21 | dataw0lf | what I'm seeing here is a trend that sendmail is using old records from somewhere |
| 15:40.27 | dataw0lf | that's what the problem is |
| 15:40.33 | dataw0lf | but as for where it's getting them... |
| 15:41.24 | macnewbold | hmm... I bet if you switched it to FreeBSD it would work right... |
| 15:41.45 | dataw0lf | I'm betting it has something to do with Aros |
| 15:41.50 | dataw0lf | which is administered by fungus |
| 15:41.52 | dataw0lf | on FreeBSD boxes |
| 15:41.52 | dataw0lf | so |
| 15:41.54 | dataw0lf | it seems to me |
| 15:42.05 | dataw0lf | switching to FreeBSD ISN'T the answer |
| 15:42.07 | dataw0lf | :D |
| 15:42.36 | dataw0lf | but yeah, it's on a RHEL boix |
| 15:42.37 | dataw0lf | box* |
| 15:42.43 | dataw0lf | RHEL + Sendmail |
| 15:42.45 | macnewbold | Just because fungus may be fallible doesn't mean that FreeBSD is fallible... |
| 15:42.47 | dataw0lf | that's about the worst combo ever |
| 15:42.51 | macnewbold | oh, yeah totally |
| 15:43.02 | macnewbold | I thought it would be on ubuntu or something |
| 15:43.03 | dataw0lf | I'm migrating to Debian + Postfix this weekend though |
| 15:43.16 | dataw0lf | Nah, we have alot of RHEL boxes here because we have a contract with Red Hat |
| 15:43.20 | dataw0lf | that expires in two weeks :D |
| 15:43.29 | dataw0lf | so I'm migrating totally to Debian |
| 15:44.00 | dataw0lf | I got my RHCE outta my employers |
| 15:44.06 | dataw0lf | now it's time to switch to a real Linux |
| 15:45.05 | macnewbold | nice nice nice |
| 15:45.42 | macnewbold | it's high time that we start teaching redhat that inferior junk won't make them rich when they're not even keeping up with the free stuff |
| 15:46.13 | dataw0lf | true dat |
| 15:46.35 | dataw0lf | that you shouldn't use your 'free' product as a testing ground for your engineers |
| 15:49.55 | macnewbold | no kidding |
| 15:50.24 | macnewbold | these silly execs who think they need to buy support contracts when they have in-house experts, and a big community of free help... duh |
| 15:50.37 | dataw0lf | tsk tsk |
| 16:16.33 | dataw0lf | hm |
| 16:16.37 | dataw0lf | I think I know what the problem was |
| 16:16.41 | dataw0lf | the MX record was cached |
| 16:18.41 | dataw0lf | yup |
| 16:18.46 | dataw0lf | the MX records on both those were cached |
| 16:18.59 | dataw0lf | the /etc/hosts hack made them recache |
| 16:19.09 | dataw0lf | and now I got a permanent fix |
| 16:34.05 | macnewbold | no way |
| 16:34.30 | macnewbold | what's the permanent fix? and why were the MX's cached for so long (since june?!?)? |
| 16:45.00 | *** join/#uphpu fungus (n=fungus@2001:470:1f00:645:20a:95ff:fec5:636a) |
| 16:48.04 | dataw0lf | macnewbold: the permanent fix was forcing the cache to update via /etc/hosts |
| 16:48.08 | *** join/#uphpu Utah_Dave (n=boucha@0-1pool138-209.nas28.salt-lake-city1.ut.us.da.qwest.net) |
| 16:48.08 | dataw0lf | and I have no idea why it cached so long. |
| 16:48.13 | dataw0lf | it must be something with sendmail. |
| 16:48.14 | macnewbold | weird |
| 16:48.17 | dataw0lf | I sux0rz at the sendmail |
| 16:48.19 | macnewbold | or RHEL |
| 16:48.22 | dataw0lf | yeah. |
| 16:48.24 | dataw0lf | they both suck |
| 16:48.26 | dataw0lf | :D |
| 16:48.42 | macnewbold | I don't mind sendmail that much, but it has given me the occasional odd issue. |
| 16:48.53 | dataw0lf | I vastly prefer Postfix |
| 16:48.57 | dataw0lf | I just hate the sendmail configs |
| 16:49.01 | macnewbold | the only one I've really had issues with was a case where |
| 16:49.14 | macnewbold | we were hosting a web site on our box, so domain.com and www.domain.com pointed at our box, |
| 16:49.21 | macnewbold | which was also a mail server, |
| 16:49.29 | macnewbold | but the MX for the domain was at XMission |
| 16:49.55 | macnewbold | but when sendmail saw user@domain.com, and that domain.com==self, it tried to deliver locally |
| 16:50.01 | macnewbold | instead of finding the MX. |
| 16:50.16 | dataw0lf | ah |
| 16:50.18 | dataw0lf | hehe |
| 16:50.32 | macnewbold | we worked around it by replicating the alias list on our end, so it would forward all the mail that came to their boxes |
| 16:50.42 | macnewbold | the weirdest part was it would bounce stuff if it didn't exist locally, |
| 16:50.53 | macnewbold | but appeared not to pay attention to what we put in the aliases |
| 16:50.55 | dataw0lf | god, sendmail is retarded |
| 16:51.30 | macnewbold | it was only a problem for email generated locally on the box, since most non-spammers used the MX properly, but since the web site and a bunch of us users were on the box, |
| 16:51.42 | macnewbold | there was a significant amount of important mail generated locally :) |
| 16:52.10 | macnewbold | maybe one day sendmail will fix it... |
| 18:09.00 | *** join/#uphpu rkm (n=richard@128.187.236.126) |
| 18:20.43 | rkm | anybody up for an OO design question? |
| 18:24.04 | macnewbold | rkm: sure |
| 18:24.13 | macnewbold | the answer is: don't use OO |
| 18:24.14 | macnewbold | ;) |
| 18:24.17 | macnewbold | j/k |
| 18:28.26 | rkm | i have a database of sites and pages, obtained through the Google API, and I'll be accessing it with PHP5. I'm curious if I should make "site" objects that add, delete,and modify themselves or if i should make a "database" object that adds and deletes sites |
| 18:29.55 | fungus | Personally I would make site objects which call methods on a global database object to execute queries. |
| 18:30.34 | fungus | But I am not an OO expert. In fact I usually stay away from it. |
| 18:31.08 | rkm | haha, ok |
| 18:31.08 | rkm | i'm not married to that idea |
| 18:33.13 | rkm | two votes against OO -- i didn't expect that. i'm not an OO expert either, but i guess i always thought it was the "goal" when appropriate |
| 18:36.41 | *** join/#uphpu jakea (n=jakea@byu290350wks.byu.edu) |
| 18:56.40 | *** join/#uphpu rkm (n=richard@128.187.236.126) |
| 19:01.55 | rkm | mac & fungus -- for larger apps do you simply have dozens of separate functions, maybe organized in several files? |
| 19:04.36 | fungus | No, for larger apps, I usually use OO, but probably not effectively, or correctly. But I have only written 2 or 3 larger apps. |
| 19:04.56 | fungus | and all of them while I was "learning" OO. :) |
| 19:07.00 | rkm | i see |
| 19:07.00 | rkm | i guess that's how i feel here too -- this is the first time i've had PHP5 for a paid project, so i'm wondering if i should take advantage to really use OO |
| 19:07.00 | rkm | but i guess it doesn't make sense to "try" to use a tool if you really don't need it |
| 19:07.18 | rkm | then again, maybe i don't know what the tool really does until i try it |
| 20:08.17 | *** join/#uphpu rkm (n=richard@128.187.236.126) |
| 20:12.42 | *** join/#uphpu synic (n=synic@66.239.17.226.ptr.us.xo.net) |
| 22:01.39 | *** part/#uphpu Utah_Dave (n=boucha@0-1pool138-209.nas28.salt-lake-city1.ut.us.da.qwest.net) |