April 2003 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: ODBC

by Bill Medland

On April 23, 2003 09:46 am, Ludueña, Leonardo wrote: > We have an application developed by our company, that > application use a ODBC connection. I need to know if there > previous experiencies with that kind of port. > > TIA What do you want to know? The builtin version of odbc32.dll basically acts as a connection to any underlying unix ODBC (e.g. unixODBC or iODBC; I only have experience of unixODBC). Therefore it basically handles just about anything that the underlying ODBC does. We use it against IBM DB2 databases, and I think we have succeeded (sort of, in the past) against Oracle databases. The problem against MS-SQL and other databases is finding a unixODBC driver. The other possibility is to use a native Microsoft odbc32.dll and its drivers (if that is legal) and depend upon Wine handling the low-level network stuff etc. I don't personally have any experience of that. -- Bill Medland ACCPAC International, Inc. medbi01(a)accpac.com Corporate: www.accpac.com Hosted Services: www.accpaconline.com

April 24, 2003

Re: winehq mailing list archives being harvested by spammers

by Brian Vincent (C)

> executive summary: "please obscure the email addresses in the > winehq mailing list archives, I'm drowning in spam"! FWIW, Zack Brown and I began obscuring all the email address in the Wine Traffic / Kernel Traffic newsletters a while ago. They used to be embedded in the XML, HTML and various pages referenced on the site. However, any email sent to wine-devel before mid October will show up in the mailing list stats in the XML pages on both WineHQ and Wine Traffic (Zack's site). --------------- Brian Vincent Copper Mountain Telecom vincentb(a)coppercolorado.com

April 24, 2003

Re: winehq mailing list archives being harvested by spammers

by Dan Kegel

Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Dan Kegel wrote: > > >>Examples of effective privacy measures for mailing list archives >>include: >> * restricting archive access to list members >> * not restricting access, but using the HTTP password mechanism >> to discourage spiders (e.g. perforce-users mailing list) > > > I am sorry, but this makes the archives unavailable to Google, > which is just plain unaccetable. Right, which is why I went on to say: > * simply obscuring all email addresses in message headers or trailers > That last countermeasure is my favorite one, since it means that > Google will still have full access to the info in the list archive. - Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045

April 24, 2003

Re: winehq mailing list archives being harvested by spammers

by Mike Hearn

Yes, I've noticed that in the past few weeks it's become particularly bad. I have no idea why there's suddenly such a huge volume, my spam traps don't seem to filter the new stuff out for some reason. On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 17:24, Dan Kegel wrote: > Hi, > executive summary: "please obscure the email addresses in the > winehq mailing list archives, I'm drowning in spam"! > > I am facing a tidal wave of spam. Recent research showed that > the main way spammers get email addresses is by web crawling. > Therefore, I'm doing a web search for my work email address > (dank at ixiacom.com) and doing my best to erase all mention of it. > I hate doing this, but the spam is getting so bad I have to do something, > and spam filtering isn't quite doing the job. > I expect others are now or will soon be in the same situation. > > Most mentions of my work address are in web archives of mailing lists. > While many mailing lists have instituted some privacy controls, > many others have not. > > Here's a couple examples of archived messages containing my work address: > http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-users/2001/09/0474.html > http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/02/0190.html > I have no specific evidence the wine archives in particular > have been harvested by spammers, but if Google can see my > address there, so can they... > > Examples of effective privacy measures for mailing list archives > include: > * restricting archive access to list members > * not restricting access, but using the HTTP password mechanism > to discourage spiders (e.g. perforce-users mailing list) > * simply obscuring all email addresses in message headers or trailers > That last countermeasure is my favorite one, since it means that > Google will still have full access to the info in the list archive. > > I would greatly appreciate it if the archive would institute one of > the above spam countermeasures (preferably the last one). > I understand that overly harsh spam countermeasures would be > harmful to normal discourse, but I trust some useful middle > ground can be found. > > Thanks, > Dan Kegel

April 24, 2003

Re: PATCH: include/objidl.h

by Uwe Bonnes

>>>>> "Gerald" == Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer(a)dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes: Gerald> Modern compilers (such as the one shipped with SuSE Linux 8.2) Gerald> complain about this construct, which is quite useless anyway. Gerald> Gerald Gerald> ChangeLog: Remove useless DUMMYSTRUCTNAME from _userSTGMEDIUM. Gerald, either this is wrong for the other 30 occurances in ~/include, or more explanation is needed, why this is wrong here and not in the other places. Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

April 24, 2003

Re: winehq mailing list archives being harvested by spammers

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Dan Kegel wrote: > Examples of effective privacy measures for mailing list archives > include: > * restricting archive access to list members > * not restricting access, but using the HTTP password mechanism > to discourage spiders (e.g. perforce-users mailing list) I am sorry, but this makes the archives unavailable to Google, which is just plain unaccetable. We might as well not have them at all, our search engine on WineHQ is basically useless for searching the archives (it fails to do even a shitty job, whereas the same query on Google will get you what you want virtually every time). -- Dimi.

April 24, 2003

winehq mailing list archives being harvested by spammers

by Dan Kegel

Hi, executive summary: "please obscure the email addresses in the winehq mailing list archives, I'm drowning in spam"! I am facing a tidal wave of spam. Recent research showed that the main way spammers get email addresses is by web crawling. Therefore, I'm doing a web search for my work email address (dank at ixiacom.com) and doing my best to erase all mention of it. I hate doing this, but the spam is getting so bad I have to do something, and spam filtering isn't quite doing the job. I expect others are now or will soon be in the same situation. Most mentions of my work address are in web archives of mailing lists. While many mailing lists have instituted some privacy controls, many others have not. Here's a couple examples of archived messages containing my work address: http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-users/2001/09/0474.html http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/02/0190.html I have no specific evidence the wine archives in particular have been harvested by spammers, but if Google can see my address there, so can they... Examples of effective privacy measures for mailing list archives include: * restricting archive access to list members * not restricting access, but using the HTTP password mechanism to discourage spiders (e.g. perforce-users mailing list) * simply obscuring all email addresses in message headers or trailers That last countermeasure is my favorite one, since it means that Google will still have full access to the info in the list archive. I would greatly appreciate it if the archive would institute one of the above spam countermeasures (preferably the last one). I understand that overly harsh spam countermeasures would be harmful to normal discourse, but I trust some useful middle ground can be found. Thanks, Dan Kegel -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045

April 24, 2003

I: Wine and SQl server.

by Carlo Pelini

> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlo Pelini > Inviato: giovedì 24 aprile 2003 17.42 > A: 'wine-users(a)Winehq.com' > Oggetto: Wine and SQl server. > > Hy. I am a computer science student, and I am studing wine for my degree > thesis. > I have succeded to run VisualFoxPro on wine and by VisualFoxPro i have > succeded to utilize the unixODBC and the ODBC windows. With the unixODBC I > have succeded to open a connession with a database SQL server, to execute > a interrogation and to visualize the result. > For to can to do there, I dont'have utilized directly the driver SQL > server, but I have utilzed easysoft ODBC-ODBC bridge > (http://www.easysoft.com/products/oob/main.phtml) a ODBCF driver, which > do precisely from bridge between the ODBC client and the ODBC server, and > allow the connession with a database SQL server. > Thank at there proceeding, I have succeded to run AD HOC REVOLUTION, a > managerial software, even if is slow. > Bye.

April 24, 2003

Server Crash

by Jeremy Newman

It's time for the annual server crash kids! Whee! Our server melted last night at about 3am or so after 2 days of solid high traffic (the load average was up over 100). I managed to get it up and running with some WD-40, Duct Tape, and some bubble gum. I can't guarantee uptime right now. I AM, however, scrambling to beef it up to handle the load. I apologize in advance for any further downtime. As you can imagine, with all this good press, I don't want the server do be down any longer than a few nanoseconds. If anyone has a quad processor Xeon they are not using, feel free to send it my way. :-D -- Jeremy Newman <jnewman(a)codeweavers.com> CodeWeavers, Inc.

April 24, 2003

Re: wintab32 (from CrossOver Office)

by Mike Hearn

> > >We're debating now how to do better. And we're >open to suggestions. Ideas? > I don't really have any, I'm much happier now that the policy has been made clear. It seems fine to me. No promised on xembed though ;) >In fact, I'd like to know if there are more simmering >complaints out there. If there is anything else >we've done that pissed someone off, but they were >too polite to mention it, let us know. > >I'd rather we intentionally pissed people off >than did it by accident <grin>. > >Cheers, > >Jeremy >

April 24, 2003