Mailing List fun

[Wolf-6]

Subject: OT: Mail service Restored

Who'd have thunk that a person who messes up a Time Warner account and WORKS in
Time Warner can disable your email accounts.
 
Not only that, but when they finally figure out what happened (3 phone calls,
over an hour on the phone with them), they are unable to restore the email
accounts until you drive home, reboot the router, call and WAIT ON HOLD for
their customer service reps and then another 10 minutes later get the email
accounts restored.
 
Sorry for the bounces everyone.
 
Wolf

Of course, after I sent that, I got an immediate failure message
=====================
This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
 
Your message was not delivered because the destination computer refused
to accept it (the error message is reproduced below).  This type of error
is usually due to a mis-configured account or mail delivery system on the
destination computer; however, it could be caused by your message since
some mail systems refuse messages with invalid header information, or if
they are too large.
 
Your message was rejected by pair1.php.net for the following reason:
 
     Apparent off-topic email rejected.
 
The following recipients did not receive this message:
 
     <php-general@...>
 
The following websites may contain more information to assist you:
 
http://help.rr.com/HMSLogic/rrmail.aspx 
 
http://security.rr.com/help.htm 
 
http://security.rr.com/contact.htm 
 
Please do not reply to this message, as it will go to an unread
mailbox

Open Attachment 2 Open

--- Forwarded Message ---
Date:
[Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:35:23 -0400]
From: Wolf <lonewolf@...>
To: php-general <php-general@...>


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Boyd, Todd M.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolf [mailto:lonewolf@...]

---8<--- snip!

Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it automagically. I wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead; now I know. :) Seems kind of strange that going through the effort of flagging your own message as OT so that people can skip it rather than complain is rewarded with a bounce...

Se la vi.


Todd Boyd
Web Programmer

[Robert Cummings]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:50 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wolf [mailto:lonewolf@...]
>
> ---8<--- snip!
>
> Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it automagically. I wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead; now I know. :) Seems kind of strange that going through the effort of flagging your own message as OT so that people can skip it rather than complain is rewarded with a bounce...
>
> Se la vi.

I'm sure you mean "C'est la vie!" here, unless that isn't French :)

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Boyd, Todd M.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Cummings [mailto:robert@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:57 AM
> To: Boyd, Todd M.
> Cc: php-general@...
> Subject: RE: [PHP] Mailing List fun
>
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:50 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wolf [mailto:lonewolf@...]
> >
> > ---8<--- snip!
> >
> > Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it
> automagically. I wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead;
> now I know. :) Seems kind of strange that going through the effort of
> flagging your own message as OT so that people can skip it rather than
> complain is rewarded with a bounce...
> >
> > Se la vi.
>
> I'm sure you mean "C'est la vie!" here, unless that isn't French :)

Spanish... but maybe I spelled something wrong. 5 years of Japanese and
26 years of bad English is all I've got under my belt. :) (Though, I at
least know that the "e" in "Se" needs an accent... but I'm not going to
go through my Character Map to find it.)

Also--follow-up to what you had posted earlier: there are .png
compression algorithms? I must get a hold of one and try to use it in a
side project of mine (that relies on .png for transparency, since .gif
has a limited palette and .jpg is not lossless).


Todd Boyd
Web Programmer




--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Daniel Brown-5]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@...> wrote:
>>
>> Se la vi.
>
> I'm sure you mean "C'est la vie!" here, unless that isn't French :)

    He was referring to the editor, Vi.  In a language known as
Peachpese, it is directly-translated as "see the editor."  And, in the
context of editing his email, you'll see that it makes perfect sense.

--
</Daniel P. Brown>
More full-root dedicated server packages:
Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo.
Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo.
Intel 2.4GHz/320/GB/1GB/3TB $74.99/mo.
Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Robert Cummings]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 12:00 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Cummings [mailto:robert@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:57 AM
> > To: Boyd, Todd M.
> > Cc: php-general@...
> > Subject: RE: [PHP] Mailing List fun
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:50 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wolf [mailto:lonewolf@...]
> > >
> > > ---8<--- snip!
> > >
> > > Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it
> > automagically. I wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead;
> > now I know. :) Seems kind of strange that going through the effort of
> > flagging your own message as OT so that people can skip it rather than
> > complain is rewarded with a bounce...
> > >
> > > Se la vi.
> >
> > I'm sure you mean "C'est la vie!" here, unless that isn't French :)
>
> Spanish... but maybe I spelled something wrong. 5 years of Japanese and
> 26 years of bad English is all I've got under my belt. :) (Though, I at
> least know that the "e" in "Se" needs an accent... but I'm not going to
> go through my Character Map to find it.)

Ah Spanish... :)

> Also--follow-up to what you had posted earlier: there are .png
> compression algorithms? I must get a hold of one and try to use it in a
> side project of mine (that relies on .png for transparency, since .gif
> has a limited palette and .jpg is not lossless).

I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Ashley Sheridan-3]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
> --
> http://www.interjinn.com
> Application and Templating Framework for PHP
Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
loss involved, which is why it's best to work on photos that are not in
JPEG format, as each save and re-open creates more and more distortion
(although not much that will be noticed in a photo!)


Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Daniel Brown-5]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<ash@...> wrote:
> Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
> 100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
> loss involved, which is why it's best to work on photos that are not in
> JPEG format, as each save and re-open creates more and more distortion
> (although not much that will be noticed in a photo!)

    Hey, you kids get this off-topic discussion off my lawn!

    How many times do I have to remind you that this is a *PHP* list?
Don't I do well enough leading by example by never posting non-PHP
stuff to this list?

    Good God....

--
</Daniel P. Brown>
More full-root dedicated server packages:
Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo.
Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo.
Intel 2.4GHz/320/GB/1GB/3TB $74.99/mo.
Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Boyd, Todd M.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Brown [mailto:parasane@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 1:54 PM
> To: ash@...
> Cc: Robert Cummings; Boyd, Todd M.; php-general@...
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Mailing List fun
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <ash@...> wrote:
> > Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even
> at
> > 100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is
> always
> > loss involved, which is why it's best to work on photos that are not
> in
> > JPEG format, as each save and re-open creates more and more
> distortion
> > (although not much that will be noticed in a photo!)
>
>     Hey, you kids get this off-topic discussion off my lawn!
>
>     How many times do I have to remind you that this is a *PHP* list?
> Don't I do well enough leading by example by never posting non-PHP
> stuff to this list?
>
>     Good God....

Everybody run! It's Old Man Brown!

Maaaaan... now we'll never get our baseball back. :(


Todd Boyd
Web Programmer

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Robert Cummings]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rob.
> > --
> > http://www.interjinn.com
> > Application and Templating Framework for PHP
> Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy

I've never heard the term "web-safe" applied to images. What do you mean
by that? Lack of browser support? Breaks the web-safe 216 colour
palette?

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Robert Cummings]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:53 -0400, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <ash@...> wrote:
> > Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
> > 100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
> > loss involved, which is why it's best to work on photos that are not in
> > JPEG format, as each save and re-open creates more and more distortion
> > (although not much that will be noticed in a photo!)
>
>     Hey, you kids get this off-topic discussion off my lawn!

Due to the recent trends in sub-prime mortgages... your lawn is now MY
lawn.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Jay Moore-5]

Robert Cummings wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rob.
>>> --
>>> http://www.interjinn.com
>>> Application and Templating Framework for PHP
>> Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy
>
> I've never heard the term "web-safe" applied to images. What do you mean
> by that? Lack of browser support? Breaks the web-safe 216 colour
> palette?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.

I'd guess it means the filesize is ridiculously huge.

Jay

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Robert Cummings]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:53 -0400, Daniel Brown wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <ash@...> wrote:
> > Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
> > 100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
> > loss involved, which is why it's best to work on photos that are not in
> > JPEG format, as each save and re-open creates more and more distortion
> > (although not much that will be noticed in a photo!)
>
>     Hey, you kids get this off-topic discussion off my lawn!
>
>     How many times do I have to remind you that this is a *PHP* list?
> Don't I do well enough leading by example by never posting non-PHP
> stuff to this list?
>
>     Good God....

BTW, to point out the obvious hypocrisy... you write this after starting
that huge off-topic discussion yesterday about some guy named Robert
Cummings and his new baby. Sheeeeeesh!! Get off my world!

;)

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Ashley Sheridan-3]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 15:54 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Rob.
> > > --
> > > http://www.interjinn.com
> > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP
> > Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy
>
> I've never heard the term "web-safe" applied to images. What do you mean
> by that? Lack of browser support? Breaks the web-safe 216 colour
> palette?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
> --
> http://www.interjinn.com
> Application and Templating Framework for PHP
>
>

There are two types of JPEG, the normal ones, and the new 2000 format.
JPEG 2000 I believe supports CMYK and lossless compression, but the
images do not display on any browser I know of. This has caused a lot of
problems with CMS's that I've put together, as the images aren't
recognised by GD either, so I couldn't even change them. And a lot of
clients didn't even realise they were using the wrong type, as they were
just using the same images they use for print.


Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Robert Cummings]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 21:11 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
> There are two types of JPEG, the normal ones, and the new 2000 format.
> JPEG 2000 I believe supports CMYK and lossless compression, but the
> images do not display on any browser I know of. This has caused a lot of
> problems with CMS's that I've put together, as the images aren't
> recognised by GD either, so I couldn't even change them. And a lot of
> clients didn't even realise they were using the wrong type, as they were
> just using the same images they use for print.

Cool. Thanks for the lesson :)

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[tedd-2]

At 3:54 PM -0400 10/1/08, Robert Cummings wrote:

>On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>>  On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>  > I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers,
>>  > Rob.
>>  > --
>>  > http://www.interjinn.com
>>  > Application and Templating Framework for PHP
>>  Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy
>
>I've never heard the term "web-safe" applied to images. What do you mean
>by that? Lack of browser support? Breaks the web-safe 216 colour
>palette?
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.

The term "web-safe" when applied to images was a misnomer -- there
was no such thing.

It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider staples
of browsers, such as red, white, blue, cornflowerblue, and so. I
think there was 256 of them -- but I may be wrong.

In any event, of those considered "web-safe" there were very few of
those that were actually the same color when viewed across different
browsers. So, truly "web-safe" colors were just a handful.

Cheers,

tedd

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

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Daniel Brown-5]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd <tedd.sperling@...> wrote:
>
> The term "web-safe" when applied to images was a misnomer -- there was no
> such thing.
>
> It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider staples of
> browsers, such as red, white, blue, cornflowerblue, and so. I think there
> was 256 of them -- but I may be wrong.

    What's wrong with everyone?  No one has yet thrown out a Wikipedia
link.  I know damn well that some of you looked it up!

--
</Daniel P. Brown>
More full-root dedicated server packages:
Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo.
Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo.
Intel 2.4GHz/320/GB/1GB/3TB $74.99/mo.
Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[tedd-2]

At 4:36 PM -0400 10/1/08, Daniel Brown wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd <tedd.sperling@...> wrote:
>>
>>  The term "web-safe" when applied to images was a misnomer -- there was no
>>  such thing.
>>
>>  It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider staples of
>>  browsers, such as red, white, blue, cornflowerblue, and so. I think there
>>  was 256 of them -- but I may be wrong.
>
>     What's wrong with everyone?  No one has yet thrown out a Wikipedia
>link.  I know damn well that some of you looked it up!
>

Here's a link that explains what people used to think.

http://www.permadi.com/tutorial/websafecolor/

But that's not the way it actually is.

There has been a more exhaustive study of those colors and it was
discovered that very few of those colors were "web-safe" (i.e., no
differences in color) across different browsers.

Cheers,

tedd

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

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd <tedd.sperling@...> wrote:
>>
>> The term "web-safe" when applied to images was a misnomer -- there  
>> was no
>> such thing.
>>
>> It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider  
>> staples of
>> browsers, such as red, white, blue, cornflowerblue, and so. I think  
>> there
>> was 256 of them -- but I may be wrong.
>
>    What's wrong with everyone?  No one has yet thrown out a Wikipedia
> link.  I know damn well that some of you looked it up!

We are waiting for you to get off your lazy ass and do some work for  
us! :P


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php