Subject: Re: Bug in 1.7.6?

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 20:52:37 -0700

Your code isn't doing what you expect: return inside a 'fork', can
only return from that fork, since otherwise, the task has already
returned.

You cannot simply verify email addresses of the form 'user@host' by
connecting to 'host' and ask it about 'user'. I know of no simple,
efficient and accurate way to verify email addresses from MOO; thus,
LambdaCore's $network:invalid_email_address merely tests for valid
form of email addresses by comparing the user and host against regular
expressions.

If this used to print messages to you and no longer does, I'd suspect
that the open_network_connection is failing, and your 'while' loop is
running endlessly.

---

From: Andrew Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 05:47:39 -0700

> From [email-masked] Wed Oct 13 07:10:07 1993
> Fake-Sender: [email-masked]
> X-NS-Transport-ID: 08002008D0FD00575E61
> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 22:54:31 PDT
> From: Pavel Curtis <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Bug in 1.7.6?
> To: [email-masked]
> cc: [email-masked]
> Content-Length: 3597
> 

[use of onc() related stuff deleted]

> ===============================================================================
> 
> Now, that was the truth, but *should* it be so?  I propose in version 1.8.0 to
> eliminate the possibility of output from an open_network_connection() being
> treated as normal MOO commands.  Outbound network connections would be
> completely distinguished from inbound ones and only read() would drain the
> received output from the connection.
> 
> I am aware that such a change would be incompatible with the way some onc()
> applications are currently written, notably at least one of the various MOO-net
> implementations.  I believe, however, that such a change would (1) make it
> easier to write reliable onc() applications, and (2) be much easier to explain
> to people.
> 
> Since I am going to resume full-time work on 1.8.0 within the next week or so,
> now is the time to speak up about this proposed change.  Absent any persuasive
> arguments in favor of the status quo (and more persuasive than "but I'd have to
> rewrite parts of MOO-net"), I will implement the proposal.
> 
> Please let me hear from you (preferably in mail sent to MOO-Cows, so that
> others can respond) if you have major problems with this change.
> 
> 	Pavel
> 

Preventing the server parser from EVER seeing onc() derived text would make
MOO-net (the Networker thing) much easier to handle.  I've had to put some
pretty nasty code into the otherwise neat MOO-net sw just to prevent the server
grabbing hold of text when it shouldn't.

At present onc() is a mess.  There are two ways of processing incoming text,
either let the server have it all or mess with it yourself.  onc()-oriented
programs are notoriously difficult to debug and frankly ANYTHING that makes
the beast more stable will be a bonus.

By 'sheer coincidence' MOO-net is entering a difficult transitional phase; my
own server ate its .db a while ago and I've stalled any further development of
the system till onc()'s design is finalised and changes have filtered through
to $network and the like.  Basically, when I get round to it I'll be rewriting
the thing again from scratch anyway ;)

Cool, go for it, etc,
	A.