[32578] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3850 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Wed Jan 2 00:09:23 2013
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:09:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Tue, 1 Jan 2013 Volume: 11 Number: 3850
Today's topics:
Re: CGI Question <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Re: CGI Question <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Re: CGI Question <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Re: CGI Question <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: CGI Question <sbryce@scottbryce.com>
Re: CGI Question <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Re: CGI Question <sbryce@scottbryce.com>
Re: CGI Question <sbryce@scottbryce.com>
Re: CGI Question <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: CGI Question <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: CGI Question <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Re: CGI Question <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Re: CGI Question <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Re: CGI Question <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Re: CGI Question <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Date in CSV/TSV question <nospam@lisse.NA>
DESTROY gotcha <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: DESTROY gotcha <derykus@gmail.com>
Re: plural and singular syntax in Perl5, PHP and Perl6 <bjoern@hoehrmann.de>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 09:23:23 -0600
From: "E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <rOudnRkRi_j7Yn_NnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"Scott Bryce" <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote in message
news:kbt0dl$pq3$1@dont-email.me...
>
> Don't do that. Move the password file to a directory above the document
> root where it cannot be accessed via the internet. (The passwords are
> encrypted, aren't they?)
Thanks for that recommendation.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 09:44:02 -0600
From: "E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <3e-dnTmkWoummX7NnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"Charlton Wilbur" <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote in message
news:87ehi62oim.fsf@new.chromatico.net...
There might be only a half dozen people posting notes to this bulletin
board. And I would expect that only a relatively small number of people
will be reading the posts. So, there should not be any major problems. The
goal here and the reason for using that particular bulletin board program is
being discussed in one of my other posts.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:20:50 -0600
From: "E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <gvGdnQLHp75GkX7NnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com>
"E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:zN6dneyLzP8dvULNnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@earthlink.com...
These are a few comments regarding why the WWWBoard program is being
used to get this communications effort started. Computer programmers might
not be aware that there is a particular type of problem that exists within
the international scientific community. These are all personal opinions.
Something that most people appear to be unaware of is the fact that
quite often, members of the international scientific community don't know
how to exchange important information with one another in a timely manner.
They know so little about computer programming and Internet applications
that they don't know how to get bulletin boards running for example. The
result is that information has to be circulated by E-mail. And that doesn't
work too well.
This particular effort is getting underway using that older bulletin
board program to simply get something running that can bypass that
communications roadblock in one relatively small area of science. During
the past year I have stated quite clearly to U.S. government officials that
these communications problems exist within the international scientific
community. They are quite serious. And governments need to make
significant efforts to deal with those problems. It has been my personal
experience that government officials are quite often completely unaware of
the existence of these communications problems. At least now, some of them
here in the U.S. are aware that this is the case. Whether or not they will
be able to, or if they will even attempt to solve these major communications
problems remains to be seen.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:21:08 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <87k3rw98nf.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> writes:
> This is a little OT here, but since you haven't had a good answer to
> your question....
>
>
> On 12/29/2012 9:55 AM, E.D.G. wrote:
>> What permissions should the password and Perl language files have?
>
> Perl script: 755. Password file: I believe 666 will work.
Unfortunately, this doesn't qualify as 'a good answer' since both
reading from and writing to the password file is allowed for everyone
...
[...]
>> Also in that directory will be the password file that will have a
>> .txt extension.
>
> Don't do that. Move the password file to a directory above the document
> root where it cannot be accessed via the internet. (The passwords are
> encrypted, aren't they?)
... and encrypting them doesn't help. That's a design mistake dating
back to the original UNIX(*) authentication system: Someone who has
access to a file containing the encrypted passwords can grab it and
run an offline dictionary/ brute force attack against it using
whatever computing resources are available to him.
If the web server doesn't need to write to the password file, it
showned be owned by root, the group should be set to some group the
web server user is member of and the permissions should be 0640[*] (read
and write access for the owner, read access for he group, no access
for anyone else). If the code is supposed to update the password file,
the permissions should be 0660 (same as before, except that group
write access is also enabled). The reason for 'owned by root' is that
this restricts the web server to modifying the contents of the file
but not the associated meta-information (such as the permissions).
[*] Short and incomplete explanation of the numbers: 1 - execute
permission, 2 - write permission, 4 - read permission. Rightmost digit
- permissions for 'world', middle digit - group permissions, leftmost
digit - owner permissions (the leading 0 marks this as an octal [base
8] number).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:21:25 -0700
From: Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <kbv2en$j1n$1@dont-email.me>
On 1/1/2013 8:44 AM, E.D.G. wrote:
> "Charlton Wilbur" <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote in message
> news:87ehi62oim.fsf@new.chromatico.net...
>
> There might be only a half dozen people posting notes to this
> bulletin board. And I would expect that only a relatively small
> number of people will be reading the posts. So, there should not be
> any major problems.
They aren't the people who will be causing your problems.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:37:27 -0600
From: "E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <GfydnUFdQ4pcjX7NnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"Rainer Weikusat" <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote in message
news:87k3rw98nf.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com...
That will likely be enough information to get things started. The
password file is being stored manually on the Internet Server. The CGI
program will not need to write to it, only read it. I basically just needed
some information regarding how the directory structure and permission levels
need to be organized.
It is still somewhat surprising to me that the technical people
associated with my Internet Server did not have that information readily
available. And I am planning to send them a note recommending that they
prepare a report on this so that in the future they can pass the information
along to people when they have that type of question. It is not that
complicated.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:40:44 -0700
From: Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <kbv3iu$p41$1@dont-email.me>
On 1/1/2013 9:21 AM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> writes:
>> This is a little OT here, but since you haven't had a good answer
>> to your question....
>>
>>
>> On 12/29/2012 9:55 AM, E.D.G. wrote:
>>> What permissions should the password and Perl language files
>>> have?
>>
>> Perl script: 755. Password file: I believe 666 will work.
>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't qualify as 'a good answer' since both
> reading from and writing to the password file is allowed for
> everyone
Thank you for the correction.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:42:02 -0700
From: Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <kbv3lc$p41$2@dont-email.me>
On 1/1/2013 9:37 AM, E.D.G. wrote:
> It is still somewhat surprising to me that the technical people
> associated with my Internet Server did not have that information
> readily available.
It is not their job to write your code for you.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:31:45 +0100
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <slrnke6hth.gl5.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2013-01-01 16:21, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> writes:
>>> Also in that directory will be the password file that will have a
>>> .txt extension.
>>
>> Don't do that. Move the password file to a directory above the document
>> root where it cannot be accessed via the internet. (The passwords are
>> encrypted, aren't they?)
>
> ... and encrypting them doesn't help.
It actually helps rather a lot.
> That's a design mistake dating back to the original UNIX(*)
> authentication system: Someone who has access to a file containing the
> encrypted passwords can grab it and run an offline dictionary/ brute
> force attack against it using whatever computing resources are
> available to him.
And without "encryption" (nitpick: Passwords are usually hashed, not
encrypted) "someone who has access to a file containing the
cleartext passwords" has immediate access to the passwords without
having to run any further attacks. With a properly salted hash function
of sufficient length a brute force attack is infeasible and good
passwords should resist any dictionary attack.
> If the web server doesn't need to write to the password file, it
> showned be owned by root, the group should be set to some group the
> web server user is member of and the permissions should be 0640[*] (read
> and write access for the owner, read access for he group, no access
> for anyone else).
I would change "should be chowned by root" to "should be chowned to the
uid which is supposed to change the passwords". There is little reason
why this should be root.
Making the file readable by the web server of course means that the
web server and hence any attacker exploiting a flaw in the web server
can read the password file, which implies that storing cleartext passwords
there is not such a bright idea.
(If you are really serious about protecting your passwords, don't give
them to the webserver, but provide another service which the webserver
can use to check one logname/password combination at a time. If you are
really really serious, use something other than passwords: Public keys,
one time passwords, ...)
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Fluch der elektronischen Textverarbeitung:
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Man feilt solange an seinen Text um, bis
| | | hjp@hjp.at | die Satzbestandteile des Satzes nicht mehr
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zusammenpaßt. -- Ralph Babel
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:24:36 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <87623g8uln.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> writes:
> On 2013-01-01 16:21, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
>> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> writes:
>>>> Also in that directory will be the password file that will have a
>>>> .txt extension.
>>>
>>> Don't do that. Move the password file to a directory above the document
>>> root where it cannot be accessed via the internet. (The passwords are
>>> encrypted, aren't they?)
>>
>> ... and encrypting them doesn't help.
>
> It actually helps rather a lot.
As 'piece of mind' feature possibly (it also avoids the need to
repeatedly explain this).
Paraphrasing from Wikipedia:
,----
| In 1987 the author of the original Shadow Password Suite, Julie Haugh,
| experienced a computer break-in and wrote the initial release of the
| Shadow Suite containing the login, passwd and su commands. The
| original release, written for the SCO Xenix operating system, quickly
| got ported to other platforms.
|
| [...]
|
| Password shadowing first appeared in UNIX systems with the development
| of System V Release 3.2 in 1988 and BSD4.3 Reno in 1990.
`----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28file%29
NB: I already wrote a much longer reply, but I have no interested in
discussing anything with the author of the previous posting.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:30:19 -0500
From: Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <87zk0s1thw.fsf@new.chromatico.net>
>>>>> "EDG" == E D G <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com> writes:
EDG> Computer programmers might not be aware that there is
EDG> a particular type of problem that exists within the
EDG> international scientific community.
And it's pretty clear that the "international scientific community"
needs to hire a few minimally competent sysadmins, because it's apparent
taht the "international scientific community" doesn't have the first
clue about network security.
EDG> It has been my personal experience that government officials
EDG> are quite often completely unaware of the existence of these
EDG> communications problems. At least now, some of them here in
EDG> the U.S. are aware that this is the case. Whether or not they
EDG> will be able to, or if they will even attempt to solve these
EDG> major communications problems remains to be seen.
This is because the communications problems are, in fact, nonexistent:
there are dozens of online blog and bulletin board services,
www.blogger.com, for one. Also, any scientist affiliated with even a
small institution of higher learning will have system administrators and
interns who can set up servers if an actual dedicated server is
necessary (hint: it isn't); and if you need a separate bulletin board,
it is almost certainly for you to pay $25-$50 a month to a company that
knows what it's doing so that they can run it for you than for you,
with your demonstrated history of incomprehension and stubborn
resistance to correction, to attempt to run a software package that was
abandoned by its author as terrible and insecure nearly two decades ago.
You have an AB problem. What you *need* to do is publish information.
What you are *trying* to do is configure WWWBoard. The latter approach
is possibly one of the worst approaches to solving the problem you
actually have, and will create numerous other problems for you and (more
importantly) for others to clean up.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:23:55 -0500
From: Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <874nj038d0.fsf@new.chromatico.net>
>>>>> "EDG" == E D G <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com> writes:
EDG> There might be only a half dozen people posting notes to this
EDG> bulletin board. And I would expect that only a relatively
EDG> small number of people will be reading the posts. So, there
EDG> should not be any major problems.
Some years ago I heard about this wonderful program called leafnode: an
NNTP proxy. I was connected to the Internet by a permanent 56K line,
but had a 100BaseT Ethernet network behind it, so I thought it was
*awesome* - since there were several of us reading news, this would both
reduce and even out the network load from NNTP traffic. And as only a
few people would be using it, there was little to no need for security.
Within two hours my network link was saturated, and a bit of
poking determined that it had been discovered and was in use by over 200
people for trading some rather unsavory pornography.
WITHIN TWO HOURS.
You are making a colossal mistake. The people who pay for your mistake
will be your network admins, your system administrators, and every
person who is spammed or DDoS'd by the hackers who take over your box.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:59:12 -0600
From: "E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <0p-dneo9sM4bLX7NnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"Charlton Wilbur" <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote in message
news:874nj038d0.fsf@new.chromatico.net...
> You are making a colossal mistake.
I have already made extensive changes to the WWWBoard program version
that I am planning to use. And once it becomes operational it won't take
long before the code is changed enough that it might be totally different
from the original program. One important security feature that was not in
the original program has already been added. And just to be safe I am
planning to be add a second interesting security feature that I have never
heard of anyone else using.
The main reason for wanting to go with a program written totally
using Perl is because it is so easy to modify.
Additionally, versions of that original WWWBoard program along with
modified versions have probably already been in use on the Internet for
perhaps ten years or more. And they have gotten extensive use. I have been
posting notes to one of them myself for probably that long and am still
doing that.
PLAN B
If all else fails, I intend to go back to PLAN B. It worked in the
past.
This involves running the program on my PC and not the Internet
Server. Once every few days the postings that the program generates will
simply be copied to my Web site as ordinary html files. With the rather low
number of expected postings that won't be a problem.
Should that become necessary an effort will then get underway to
locate a different bulletin board program. At the moment I don't know of
any that are written using Perl that will run with my PC based Xampp
program. I tried Movable Type a while back. The version I had was supposed
to be written in Perl. But I could not get it to run with Xampp.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:05:34 -0600
From: "E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <rJCdnSN0wJGUL37NnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"Scott Bryce" <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote in message
news:kbv3lc$p41$2@dont-email.me...
> It is not their job to write your code for you.
The problem was that they could not explain how the file permissions need to
be set for any CGI program or password file.
They probably only need to learn how to do that once. And it can't see that
it would require much time or effort for them.
In any case, it looks like the matter will have been possible to resolve
through these Newsgroup discussions.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:25 -0600
From: "E.D.G." <edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: CGI Question
Message-Id: <yc6dnbjRtbupK37NnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"Charlton Wilbur" <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote in message
news:87zk0s1thw.fsf@new.chromatico.net...
> And it's pretty clear that the "international scientific community"
> needs to hire a few minimally competent sysadmins, because it's apparent
> taht the "international scientific community" doesn't have the first
> clue about network security.
I totally agree that this type of effort should be managed by
professional computer programmers. And the overall effort is in fact moving
along at two different levels.
1. There is this very basic effort that has been discussed here that I
myself am attempting in part to see what is possible.
2. I am attempting to convince governments and NGOs etc. that they need to
get a formal effort organized that would make it possible for scientists
around the world to do a better job of providing them with important
technical information in a timely manner and also in a manner that they can
understand the information.
There are already a number of research groups and other resources
such as Wikipedia.org on the Internet that are making it possible for
scientists to compare notes with one another regarding various subjects.
And they are probably helpful to some extent, especially Wikipedia. But
they cannot solve the specific problem that I am attempting to deal with
here. It has too many highly complex issues associated with it for those
groups to deal with.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:56:14 +0200
From: Dr Eberhard Lisse <nospam@lisse.NA>
Subject: Date in CSV/TSV question
Message-Id: <akhbcqFeqtlU1@mid.individual.net>
I have a Tab Separated File of roughly 1000 likes with the first fields like
"07 Jan 2011" "TFR"
"05 Jan 2011" "DR"
I need change the first field to look like
2011-01-07 "TFR"
2011-01-05 "DR"
for all lines, of course :-)-O
Can someone point me to where I can read this up? Or send me a code
fragment?
Thanks, el
--
if you want to reply, replace nospam with my initials
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:56:47 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: DESTROY gotcha
Message-Id: <87bod89480.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
As far as I could determine, this isn't documented anywhere, hence, I
thought I should post it: Perl exceptions, including automatically
generated ones caused by attempts to call a non-existant subroutine or
invoke a method using undef as invocant, are not propagated out of
Perl object destructors, ie, the following code
-------------
package Boo;
sub new
{
return bless([], $_[0]);
}
sub DESTROY
{
$_[2]->the_end_of_the_world_lost();
}
package main;
my $o = Boo->new();
$o = undef;
print("So we had to continue ...\n");
------------
will print 'So we had to continue ...' (this caused me quite some head
scratching yesterday because 'some code' on an appliance in Korea
apparently managed to 'escape' from a certain scope without executing
all of the contained code).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: "C.DeRykus" <derykus@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DESTROY gotcha
Message-Id: <356f0595-577e-4ae8-ad6e-c8b6a4279575@googlegroups.com>
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:56:47 AM UTC-8, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> As far as I could determine, this isn't documented anywhere, hence, I
>
> thought I should post it: Perl exceptions, including automatically
>
> generated ones caused by attempts to call a non-existant subroutine or
>
> invoke a method using undef as invocant, are not propagated out of
>
> Perl object destructors, ie, the following code
>
>
>
> -------------
>
> package Boo;
>
>
>
> sub new
>
> {
>
> return bless([], $_[0]);
>
> }
>
>
>
> sub DESTROY
>
> {
>
> $_[2]->the_end_of_the_world_lost();
>
> }
>
>
>
> package main;
>
>
>
> my $o = Boo->new();
>
> $o = undef;
>
>
>
> print("So we had to continue ...\n");
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> will print 'So we had to continue ...' (this caused me quite some head
>
> scratching yesterday because 'some code' on an appliance in Korea
>
> apparently managed to 'escape' from a certain scope without executing
>
> all of the contained code).
Perl special cases exceptions in DESTROY and so they're
untrappable. With -w though you'll at least see:
(in cleanup) Can't call method "the_end_of_the_world_lost"
on an undefined value at ...
Here's some background on the problem (and controversy):
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=924488
--
Charles DeRykus
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:18:21 +0100
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <bjoern@hoehrmann.de>
Subject: Re: plural and singular syntax in Perl5, PHP and Perl6
Message-Id: <h7r6e81hqs5u0tl96ffub6gvlqelto673k@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Andrew wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>So, I can only bash my head against the wall (note: LOWER-case "wall"),
>over the notion that not only does PHP's shortcoming (the lack of such
>succinct syntactical acrobatics as I've tried to suggest above, with the
>nested arrays and hashes in Perl) has gone COMPLETELY unnoticed
>(ignored/forgiven/even embraced as solid standard!?), I have learned
>(again, please correct me if I am wrong) that Perl itself (!!!) -- in
>its new and radically revised VERSION 6, is tossing out this baby with
>the bath water -- this gem of a syntax, obliterating the "$" versus "@"
>distinction, and (as I would put it) is descending to the painfully
>banal and ambiguous "$" for both scalars and arrays (?!) (that we
>observe in PHP)
http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S02.html#Sigils
http://perlcabal.org/syn/Differences.html#Sigils
Note that the sigil for fetching a single element has changed from
$ to @; perhaps a better way to think of it is that the sigil of a
variable is now a part of its name, so it never changes in
subscripting. This also applies to hashes.
So the situation is not quite as you put it.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp://cil-www.oce.orst.edu/pub/perl/old-digests.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 3850
***************************************
