|
Wordle 1,102 3/6
π¨π©β¬β¬π¨
β¬β¬β¬β¬π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,102 3/6
π¨β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
I've been getting junk E-mails from @message.fedex.com, which a low-level FedEx rep says is not legit (I'm waiting on someone higher up there to confirm this), and I don't want the legitimate messages from @fedex.com to be blocked if I block the messages from @message.fedex.com.
|
|
|
|
|
If an email falls in the forest when nobody is around, does it really make a sound?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the mail client you're using. In MS Outlook, I can block the sender (which should be host-specific) or the sender's domain (which should block all hosts and users from the same domain). I say "should" because Outlook has always been a bit flaky, and the latest version is not very predictable. I've never used Yahoo Mail, so I can't advise you, but you might try searching for some FAQs on their site.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about Yahoo Mail, but every other e-mail client that I have used allows one to block both the user (abc@xyz.com) and the domain (@xyz.com). They also require separate rules for subdomains (@xyz.com vs @tuv.xyz.com).
I doubt that blocking @message.fedex.com will block @fedex.com.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
As others have said, you should be able to block individuals. We block access to yahoo mail. Source of Ransomware some years ago when employee checked her email and clicked on wrong thing. Ruined my weekend, but had air gapped backups. Good, but undesired, disaster plan test. Another way to test: port forwarding.
>64
Itβs weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
So, I read this article: Easily navigate code delegates while debugging - Visual Studio Blog[^]
and I am so glad, I just don't give a flying f*** anymore. I started doing serious Windows development in 2003. I inherited a project that used ActiveX controls. Just local, no downloads - all embedded system work. I have to plow through the changing terminology of COM, DCOM, COM++, ActiveX, etc. After 3 years, I declared it utter bull****. MS renaming things just to rename things for marketing purposes.
So, I read this devblog article, and though delegates are somewhat different than function pointers, its the same old bs from Microsoft renaming stuff. Worse, I suspect it made it into the C++ standard. I don't know about that, nor do I care.
Starting next week, I'm moving to linux.
Charlie Gilley
βThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.β BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: So, I read this devblog article, and though delegates are somewhat different than function pointers, its the same old bs from Microsoft renaming stuff.
That's the difference between a senior and a junior dev. Juniors think they discovered fire half the time, but most things are rehash and rebranded with a tiny bit of newness. But, it's really the same ol' thing with a new bell and whistle.
I still use the example of XML and SGML. While XML was more strict with its DTDs, the concept of XML or a DTD was nothing new. About 10+ years ago during the XML craze, you'd hear a lot of peeps swear they discovered fire with it... even though SGML has been around for years prior. Just rehashed stuff with a bit of umph added.
charlieg wrote: Starting next week, I'm moving to linux.
You'll love it man. I've only done C and web dev on Linux, but the c lib at least has a surprising amount of functionality to it. A Linux box really does make a great dev box.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're not noticing that managed code, to the extent of .NET and maybe Java, (I don't know much about Java except that I hate eclipse,) was revolutionary. It dumbed down programming on a scale even greater than the effect Visual Basic had on Windows application programming.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure how you can draw that conclusion based off an SGML example. While I do concur the "rise" of XML and .NET were around the same time, that example stands independent of .NET, so I'm not sure what I failed to notice given the concept has nothing to do with managed code in and of itself and more to do with junior programmers of any generation knowing little of the past.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to say that. Nothing personal.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and IMO it's a bit easier to do multithreaded work in C on Linux than Windows.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh, and IMO it's a bit easier to do multithreaded work in C on Linux than Windows.
I love thread handling in C#. I can go high level and just let the framework do what it thinks it's best, or I can go low level and take complete control. And threads (aka async tasks) with awaits, while it can be a bit of a hurdle to sometimes realize what I did wrong and to how to break the chain of, oh, this method is now async, so the parent has to be async, oh wait, the grandparent now has to be async..., yeah, how to do deal with that takes some finesse, but I still love how C# implements the whole mess. 
|
|
|
|
|
I do have to admit man, while I've done very, very, very little multi-threading in C#, from what I've seen it does make it nice. More recent versions of C++ do as well.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: this method is now async, so the parent has to be async, oh wait, the grandparent now has to be async...
So much this.
One of these days I'll have to actually sit down and take the time to study this and try to understand, once and for all, how to avoid getting yourself in that situation.
Because right now I find myself avoiding using async/await because I see it as having to "retroactively pollute the entire codebase". And that can't be right, that has to be just me misunderstanding and misusing it.
|
|
|
|
|
They keep adding layers of lipstick, but it's still a pig!
A home without books is a body without soul. Marcus Tullius Cicero
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
Surely you don't think of computers as pigs, do you?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I admit to having never developed anything in C# or anything else managed. I admit that the .net ecosystem is nice, but I just wish Microsoft would stop renaming stuff to make it look new. That was the gist of my rant.
I've done a good bit of Unix development in the past - device drivers, graphics subsystems, applications, likely a few years before Linux became a twinkle in someone's eye. Tinkering, it's a bit of a shock to step back into that environment - much closer to the base system. I'm looking forward to relearning make files  .
Charlie Gilley
βThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.β BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I'm floating the idea of switching to Linux for personal use. I make my living with Microsoft technologies, but for personal use, I'm considering what would be involved in switching.
I'll be interested to see how you make out.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: I'm floating the idea of switching to Linux for personal use. I make my living with Microsoft technologies
I'm in the same boat. Can't abandon MS because of work (I've always worked for full-on MS shops), but given where MS is clearly headed, I'd rather not follow.
I like tinkering with Linux in a VM, and have an old laptop or two running it directly on the hardware, but dedicating myself to it would be a tough transition.
modified 1hr 5mins ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't developed in C# or anything managed either. Some things about C# are appealing, but it's not a fit for what I've focused on so far. Besides, you can't kiss all the girls.
Renaming in large corporations sometimes occurs when a new group takes something over and rebrands it, even to the point of inventing new terminology. It's often at the behest of the new VP, much like an animal engaging in scent marking. My former boss described it as "Same lady, new dress." 
I'd heard so many horror stories about makefiles that I kept delaying porting my code from Windows to Linux. And one day I discovered CMake, which even this dinosaur learned with relative ease. If it's a fit for what you doing (building a large C++ code base in my case), take a look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
I think Micro$oft's Delegate system to be quite hokey. Just give me regular function pointers to work with!
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly what I was thinking. But my C++ work tends to be relatively close to hardware with some desktop code mixed in, so I rarely if ever use the higher end stuff of C++. Need to read the next comment. 
Charlie Gilley
βThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.β BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
