🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9qm1qn$1db2$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Joe Smith <inwap@best.com> wrote:
>That's because these two lines in .bhtaccess got translated to
>three lines in .htaccess:

You're kidding me... they're editing our files?  That is absolutely
outrageous.  If I had anything left on Best, I would be seriously
pissed.  There is no possible way I have granted or implied any
sort of permission to modify my web files.  No way.

In article <9qn26c$1094$1@machaut.medieval.org>, mccomb@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:

>You're kidding me... they're editing our files?  That is absolutely
>outrageous. 

Heh, got my postcard this week. Just made tarballs of home and
public_html so I have a nice simple "undo".

-- 
Malcolm Hoar
malch@malch.com
Kant spell Neetchie

In article <9qn3su$1ep4$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Malcolm Hoar <malch@malch.com> wrote:
>Heh, got my postcard this week. Just made tarballs of home and
>public_html so I have a nice simple "undo".

Yeah, I have no files (of any consequence) there, but if I did....
I think that's a serious no-no.  It's a direct violation of my
explicit copyright statement on the site.

Anyway, my site is functioning fine on a nearly-vanilla Apache
install.  I plan to drop a tarball onto the eventual(?) Verio server,
and see if it works.  If it does work, the multiple login names and
such that Verio is offering seem like a decent reason to keep them
as a backup/auxiliary.  If it doesn't work, I'm not going to jump
through any hoops.  It's frustrating to wait so long to see if the
new system will even work for me, but if it doesn't, I'll waste no
time cancelling.  Especially after the Bestwwwd stuff, I'll only
consider web hosts where a generic configuration will work fine (I
believe the only slightly non-standard Apache option I require is
to run CGIs anywhere).

In article <9qn26c$1094$1@machaut.medieval.org>,
Todd Michel McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>In article <9qm1qn$1db2$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Joe Smith <inwap@best.com> wrote:
>>That's because these two lines in .bhtaccess got translated to
>>three lines in .htaccess:
>
>You're kidding me... they're editing our files?  That is absolutely
>outrageous.

It is an automatic process that converts BESTWWWD-specific SSI directives
to Apache style directives.  It would be unforgivable if my web site
stopped working because they did NOT do any conversion.

>If I had anything left on Best, I would be seriously pissed.

The old file is renamed to "index.shtml-before-migration" by the process
that translates "index.shtml".  Here is a diff:

60c60
< (<!--#include file="u/sally/macleod.count"--> hits)<br>
---
> (<!--#include virtual="u/sally/macleod.count"--> hits)<br>
70c70
< <li>This is the <!--#counter file="index.count"-->
< <A HREF="web-hints/count-list.html">hit</A> on this top-level index.
---
> <li>This is the <!--#set var="COUNTER_INFO" value="${SCRIPT_FILENAME}" -->
> <!--#include virtual="/cgi-bin/count-ssi.cgi?-findex.count"-->
> <A HREF="web-hints/count-list.html">hit</A> on this top-level index.

>There is no possible way I have granted or implied any
>sort of permission to modify my web files.  No way.

There is an implied agreement that Server Side Includes that worked with
the old web server (BESTWWWD) will continue to work on the new platform
(Apache).  This is what the majority of users would want: no effort on
my part, just make sure that my site works.
	-Joe

--
See http://www.inwap.com/ for PDP-10 and "ReBoot" pages.

In article <9qnea6$1fa5$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Joe Smith <inwap@best.com> wrote:
>This is what the majority of users would want: no effort on my
>part, just make sure that my site works.

That may be, but that does not give them permission to modify my
files.  The "majority of users" can give permission, if that's what
they want.  My web site is copyrighted (obviously), and I needn't
do anything to retain that protection.  Fortunately, my web site has
been off Best for a long time.

In article <9qnea6$1fa5$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>, inwap@best.com (Joe Smith) wrote:

>It is an automatic process that converts BESTWWWD-specific SSI directives
>to Apache style directives.
[...]
>This is what the majority of users would want: no effort on
>my part, just make sure that my site works.

By all means, make the script/process available for execution 
by the user -- even via a web form (with some authetication).

But doing it anyway makes me queasy. In addition to the legal
issues Todd mentioned, there is scope for unintended consequences
including the introduction of security vulnerabilities.

I'm not too concerned about the site that I still have at Best.
But I wouldn't be happy if this were done to sites I have
hosted elsewhere.

Making the script available is a Good Thing. Executing it without
some permission/checkpoint is a Bad Thing.

-- 
Malcolm Hoar
malch@malch.com
Kant spell Neetchie