Menu
▾
▴
phpwebsite-developers — For our development team.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(265) |
Apr
(166) |
May
(25) |
Jun
(17) |
Jul
(20) |
Aug
(47) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
(66) |
Dec
(64) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(109) |
Feb
(64) |
Mar
(34) |
Apr
(23) |
May
(64) |
Jun
(9) |
Jul
(13) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(33) |
Oct
(272) |
Nov
(67) |
Dec
(75) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(264) |
Feb
(244) |
Mar
(171) |
Apr
(119) |
May
(54) |
Jun
(93) |
Jul
(51) |
Aug
(48) |
Sep
(14) |
Oct
(49) |
Nov
(47) |
Dec
(15) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(27) |
Mar
(18) |
Apr
(44) |
May
(35) |
Jun
(24) |
Jul
(39) |
Aug
(142) |
Sep
(35) |
Oct
(34) |
Nov
(49) |
Dec
(24) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(60) |
Feb
(71) |
Mar
(19) |
Apr
(27) |
May
(68) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(30) |
Aug
(10) |
Sep
(23) |
Oct
(24) |
Nov
(13) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(46) |
Mar
(64) |
Apr
(18) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(37) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(19) |
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(8) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(23) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(25) |
Feb
(21) |
Mar
(32) |
Apr
(36) |
May
(12) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(15) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
|
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(3) |
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Mike N. <mh...@us...> - 2005-05-03 16:40:57
|
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:52, Shaun Murray wrote:
> On 3 May 2005, at 16:39, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > Personally, I prefer an NNTP client. HTML isn't designed for
> > discussion.
>
> That's mixing how discussions are stored with how they are displayed
> really. I've no objections to storing comments in an NNTP store but
> ultimately you still have to display them in HTML and allow people to
> discuss using a web browser interface.
Shaun,
I indicated a preference for NNTP client over an HTML browser. Both are
clients for display/interaction.
> Allowing access via an NNTP
> client directly is nice too although commercially it would be a
> disaster for some sites allowing users to bypass any revenue
> generating adverts or content.
I submitted this SF RFE a while ago to address that very issue.
NNTP PHP Web Interface
https://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=1072029
> NNTP clients make threaded discussion viable because they run fast
> and native on the client OS. That's tricky to do in a web browser
> unless you implement it with XMLHttpRequest and Javascript aka AJAX
> otherwise you've got multiple page reloads when navigating threads.
Correct. It's a big waste of bandwidth, and a kludge. Unfortunately,
NNTP got a bad reputation from USENET. :-(
> There's certainly more we could do to open up the interfaces in
> phpWebSite to other protocols other than HTTP, such as Atom, XML-RPC
> or NNTP but at the heart of it you've got to have a good browser side
> experience.
Agreed.
--
Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net>
http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/
SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs
|
|
From: Daniel H. <da...@he...> - 2005-05-03 16:24:56
|
On May 3, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Mike Noyes wrote: > The problem is HTML doesn't provide a good way to represent threaded > discussions. I'm just a lurker, but I'm not sure I'm following the discussion (oh, the irony). Is the issue that the data is difficult to store and query in a nested view or that presenting the nested data via HTML a problem? Seems to me that if the data is stored with a key structure that allows the generation of a tree map, that just walking the map node-by-node and generating a flat list of <div/> tags is sufficient structural markup. Presentation-ally, classing each div with its nested-ness should make styling a cinch. And if you wanted to get freaky-creative, you could give each div an id attribute that represents its node and its parent (eg <div id="6_3"> represents the 6th entry whose parent is the 3rd), and then use DOM scripting to construct the view/presentation this way. -daniel |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-03 15:52:18
|
On 3 May 2005, at 16:39, Mike Noyes wrote: > > Personally, I prefer an NNTP client. HTML isn't designed for > discussion. > That's mixing how discussions are stored with how they are displayed really. I've no objections to storing comments in an NNTP store but ultimately you still have to display them in HTML and allow people to discuss using a web browser interface. Allowing access via an NNTP client directly is nice too although commercially it would be a disaster for some sites allowing users to bypass any revenue generating adverts or content. NNTP clients make threaded discussion viable because they run fast and native on the client OS. That's tricky to do in a web browser unless you implement it with XMLHttpRequest and Javascript aka AJAX otherwise you've got multiple page reloads when navigating threads. There's certainly more we could do to open up the interfaces in phpWebSite to other protocols other than HTTP, such as Atom, XML-RPC or NNTP but at the heart of it you've got to have a good browser side experience. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Mike N. <mh...@us...> - 2005-05-03 15:37:19
|
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 05:00, Matthew McNaney wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:02 +0200, Ren=C3=A9 C. Kiesler wrote:
> > If you remove the nesting here, you don't have any chance of following =
the
> > discussions.=20
>=20
> Then I believe we should ask "why" flat view is not conducive to
> following discussions. What are some different subsets of the flat view
> that would allow this?
Matt,
People naturally follow threads. It's ingrained in our communication.
The problem is HTML doesn't provide a good way to represent threaded
discussions. NNTP does, but not many hosting providers make that service
available to their clients.
GMANE has a few different views of mailing lists they archive.
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.leaf.user
Pear Net_NNTP package
http://pear.php.net/package/Net_NNTP
Google Groups has another way of displaying things. They got a lot of
flack when they changed to this new style.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc?hl=3Den
Personally, I prefer an NNTP client. HTML isn't designed for discussion.
--=20
Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net>
http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/
SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs
|
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-03 14:32:33
|
Just as something to throw in to the melting pot... http://www.1976design.com/blog/archive/2003/11/12/comments/ It's flat view but you can click a checkbox to link it to a parent. It's a bit odd at first but it does maintain the relationship between posts without the space being used up like a threaded system. I like the colour coding too. It's particularly nice for admins adding a comment as your comment stands out. I'd also like to see that extended to users so that their comments could be tagged in a different colour so they can instantly see their own comments when visiting a thread. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-05-03 12:00:25
|
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:02 +0200, Ren=C3=A9 C. Kiesler wrote: > In fact, for me it's the other way round: I love the threaded / nested = view > and would also want it in the phpwsbb module. The reason is pretty simp= le: > Laziness. People don't use quotes but the hierarchy of comments to outl= ine > dependencies Brian had the same argument, but these view don't get to the root of problem. Instead of creating new problems with threaded/nested views, develop new tools for flat view navigation. > If you remove the nesting here, you don't have any chance of following = the > discussions.=20 Then I believe we should ask "why" flat view is not conducive to following discussions. What are some different subsets of the flat view that would allow this? I am going to work on comments more today. I really want to get an example up this week but some bug always pops up. We'll see. --=20 Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-05-03 11:44:21
|
> Since Don commented, I'm reminded that I think we should really merge > in both the comments and the forum system or be able to use the > comments module as the basis of a forum. I agree. If Don and Wendall can give me feedback to make comments easier to merge, it would be appreciated. > Can > we allow different templates for comments depending on which parent > module is using it? Good point. Yes that can be done. -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: <re...@ki...> - 2005-05-03 07:07:03
|
=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: php...@li...=20 > [mailto:php...@li...] Im=20 > Auftrag von php...@li... > Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Mai 2005 05:18 > An: php...@li... > Betreff: Phpwebsite-developers digest, Vol 1 #808 - 2 msgs >=20 > > Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this=20 > mindset 100% > > (I'm at 98% so far). >=20 > Flat is fine with me, and that is all that really matters. Just to be sure I understood that: Matt is rewriting the comment module = and wants to remove all views but the flat one? To be honest, I don't like = the idea to only have flat in later revisions of the comment module.=20 In fact, for me it's the other way round: I love the threaded / nested = view and would also want it in the phpwsbb module. The reason is pretty = simple: Laziness. People don't use quotes but the hierarchy of comments to = outline dependencies Take for example the Visitors article <http://www.kiesler.at/article148.html> or the Typo3 article <http://www.kiesler.at/article174.html>. If you remove the nesting here, you don't have any chance of following = the discussions. Please keep also in mind, that one can change post-titles, = so they wouldn't help either even if people only use to reply to the newest posts. That's why I usually prefer "threaded" views and "threaded" newsclients. see also http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=3Ddetail&aid=3D1166323&group_id=3D15= 539&atid=3D 365539 regards, Ren=E9 C. Kiesler! |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-03 03:22:21
|
On 2 May 2005, at 19:29, Don Seiler wrote: > On 14:14 Mon 02 May , Matthew McNaney wrote: > >> phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just >> sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and >> other >> stuff you guys can think of. >> >> Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset >> 100% >> (I'm at 98% so far). >> > > Flat is fine with me, and that is all that really matters. I'd agree. I've ran forums with flat and threaded views before and almost everyone switches to flat when they get busy. Threaded falls apart after more than a dozen posts IME. And no-one other than SlashDot geeks or Kuro5hin regulars understand mod points or karma modifiers. I'd leave them out for now also. Since Don commented, I'm reminded that I think we should really merge in both the comments and the forum system or be able to use the comments module as the basis of a forum. It's always struck me as a bit odd that there's a division between them. The only problem there might be that some people like the phpBB style flat view of a forum with all the extra bells and whistles. Can we allow different templates for comments depending on which parent module is using it? Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Wendall C. <wen...@83...> - 2005-05-03 00:18:23
|
Matthew McNaney wrote: >Greetings, > >A few weeks ago I started writing the Comments module. After talking >with He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named (ok fine - Steven) we outlined the Threaded >- Nested - Flat views for comments. > >Since flat view was the easiest, I started with it. It was actually >pretty easy using the DBPager class. I can paginate and it only pulls >the rows that are needed (read: speed / low overhead). After getting it >working pretty well, I started looking at threaded and nested. > >The short of it is, I don't like them for a few reasons: > >1) Unlike flat view, you have to load ALL the comments in a thread at >once. Even if you don't process them all, you have to load them. > >2) "Ah", you say, "but you can limit them by where or count!" Not >really. If I limit via the db by time, I only get the children comments >not the parents. If I limit by count, then there are gaps between pages >and most likely one thread with several children would dominate. > >3) As Mike Noyes suggested (and Steven and I debated), those views are >harder to template. > >4) I hate nested/threaded with its smaller and smaller widths. Looks >awful to me. > >I know Slashdot has the moderator points, but how many people really >want to use that? It seems more of a bandaid for the problems that >threaded/nested create. > >phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just >sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and other >stuff you guys can think of. > >Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset 100% >(I'm at 98% so far). > >Matt > > > > Flat is good. I also dislike nested in small spaces like the body area. It would be fine if the interface was designed for nested. Wendall |
|
From: Don S. <do...@se...> - 2005-05-02 18:29:39
|
On 14:14 Mon 02 May , Matthew McNaney wrote: > phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just > sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and other > stuff you guys can think of. >=20 > Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset 100% > (I'm at 98% so far). Flat is fine with me, and that is all that really matters. --=20 Don Seiler do...@se... Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0xFC87F041 Fingerprint: 0B56 50D5 E91E 4D4C 83B7 207C 76AC 5DA2 FC87 F041 |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-05-02 18:20:41
|
Greetings, A few weeks ago I started writing the Comments module. After talking with He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named (ok fine - Steven) we outlined the Threaded - Nested - Flat views for comments. Since flat view was the easiest, I started with it. It was actually pretty easy using the DBPager class. I can paginate and it only pulls the rows that are needed (read: speed / low overhead). After getting it working pretty well, I started looking at threaded and nested. The short of it is, I don't like them for a few reasons: 1) Unlike flat view, you have to load ALL the comments in a thread at once. Even if you don't process them all, you have to load them. 2) "Ah", you say, "but you can limit them by where or count!" Not really. If I limit via the db by time, I only get the children comments not the parents. If I limit by count, then there are gaps between pages and most likely one thread with several children would dominate. 3) As Mike Noyes suggested (and Steven and I debated), those views are harder to template. 4) I hate nested/threaded with its smaller and smaller widths. Looks awful to me. I know Slashdot has the moderator points, but how many people really want to use that? It seems more of a bandaid for the problems that threaded/nested create. phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and other stuff you guys can think of. Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset 100% (I'm at 98% so far). Matt -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-04-28 16:32:57
|
Jim Wilson said: > 1) Check mime types against actual file content instead of scanning > for code. The browser tells php what mime-type it is and this can be duped. If anyone knows how to read the file header on the server instead of taking the browser's word for it, please tell me. That should work. -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Jim W. <spi...@us...> - 2005-04-28 01:54:30
|
> From: Matthew McNaney <snip> > My question: is this sufficient? I have turned the security parser to > FALSE (i.e. off) in CVS to try and prevent these problems. I would like > some feedback as to whether this will make phpWebSite insecure. > Would either of these ideas help? 1) Check mime types against actual file content instead of scanning for code. Generally, binary files contain a header that provides content identification. phpWS is parsing a the whole file for a short list of tags/functions, but realistically what does that file need to look like in order to actually be executable? If the type is jpg and the the lead in bytes are the same as a valid jpg header, can we assume the file is secure and will be non-executable? I'm not sure...just asking. 2) Set the default back to true (err on the side of safey). Provide a verbose error message so that the user and or the admin can see exactly what happened, why it happened, and how to fix it if they choose to take the risk. Multi-level approach, defaulting to "TRUE" on all levels sounds good to me. Best regards, Jim Wilson |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-04-26 19:36:47
|
On 26 Apr 2005, at 20:24, wen...@to... wrote: > > I think that all that needs to happen is > that when people have problems with files that they please attach the > files to a bug report so they can be tested against and the check > method > refined until it does the job without blocking valid uploads. This was partly why I was advocating logging and 'quarantining' suspect files in the approval queue after a decent error message. We get more examples of suspect files, and users don't just go away thinking the software just doesn't work. A number of people lately have been trying out phpWebSite and finding they can't upload a PDF or an image. Instead of telling me it doesn't work in specific cases, they just go off and try something else. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: <wen...@to...> - 2005-04-26 19:25:10
|
> On 26 Apr 2005, at 18:09, Mike Noyes wrote: > >> On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:41, Matthew McNaney wrote: >>> There are two other backup measures added to the parser. First, we >>> removed the ability for anonymous users to upload documents in >>> announcements and calendar. Second, phpWebSite checks the file >>> extension >>> and prohibits executable files from being written. >> >> Matt, >> I'm no security expert, but I think uploads should be disabled by >> default. Then use fine grained permissions to allow uploads for >> specific >> users. > > If phpWebSite disallowed all uploads then it'd take a lot of the > interactivity out of a site, especially a community site. > > I really hope we don't have to be that draconian. If anything, I was > hoping we can find some way of opening up phpWebSite to MORE uploads. > eg. allowing user submitted photos in the photoalbum, creating user > specific blogs where they can upload their own images or allowing users > to attach documents to calendar events or wikis. > > I was thinking a three layer approach... > > Guests - no uploads allowed. > > Registered users - allow uploads but anything that fails the intensive > string check we have now goes to an approval queue and the user's > upload privs are revoked until an admin/deity can check what is going > on. We'd have to change the filename of the uploaded file or stick it > out of the web root so that even the uploaded file couldn't be found > out. > > Admin - no checks. no queue. > > > What would be useful though is better logging of errors so an admin can > check if anyone is trying to upload malicious code with IP/username > logging. It's also helpful as some users are clueless and don't > remember the error message given when they hit a problem or indeed what > they were doing. Of course, it'd need everyone to use the same error > handler but that's something we're slack on anyway. > > I'd also like to see the ability to block some domains from being used > for registration so that a malicious user couldn't use a temporary > hotmail account or dodgeit.com to register, launch an attack and then > not come back. > > > Shaun > aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk I don't have a problem with all files being parsed. The issue is that it needs alot more testing. This was something that was created in a couple hours to address a real security issue that could have lead to site defacement at the very least. I think that all that needs to happen is that when people have problems with files that they please attach the files to a bug report so they can be tested against and the check method refined until it does the job without blocking valid uploads. It shouldn'= t be an all or nothing approach. We do need to check for embedded scripts i= n graphics whether anybody likes it or not, or we will be plagued with various security reports about it in the future. Wendall |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-04-26 18:10:30
|
On 26 Apr 2005, at 18:09, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:41, Matthew McNaney wrote: >> There are two other backup measures added to the parser. First, we >> removed the ability for anonymous users to upload documents in >> announcements and calendar. Second, phpWebSite checks the file >> extension >> and prohibits executable files from being written. > > Matt, > I'm no security expert, but I think uploads should be disabled by > default. Then use fine grained permissions to allow uploads for > specific > users. If phpWebSite disallowed all uploads then it'd take a lot of the interactivity out of a site, especially a community site. I really hope we don't have to be that draconian. If anything, I was hoping we can find some way of opening up phpWebSite to MORE uploads. eg. allowing user submitted photos in the photoalbum, creating user specific blogs where they can upload their own images or allowing users to attach documents to calendar events or wikis. I was thinking a three layer approach... Guests - no uploads allowed. Registered users - allow uploads but anything that fails the intensive string check we have now goes to an approval queue and the user's upload privs are revoked until an admin/deity can check what is going on. We'd have to change the filename of the uploaded file or stick it out of the web root so that even the uploaded file couldn't be found out. Admin - no checks. no queue. What would be useful though is better logging of errors so an admin can check if anyone is trying to upload malicious code with IP/username logging. It's also helpful as some users are clueless and don't remember the error message given when they hit a problem or indeed what they were doing. Of course, it'd need everyone to use the same error handler but that's something we're slack on anyway. I'd also like to see the ability to block some domains from being used for registration so that a malicious user couldn't use a temporary hotmail account or dodgeit.com to register, launch an attack and then not come back. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Mike N. <mh...@us...> - 2005-04-26 17:08:56
|
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:41, Matthew McNaney wrote: > There are two other backup measures added to the parser. First, we > removed the ability for anonymous users to upload documents in > announcements and calendar. Second, phpWebSite checks the file extension > and prohibits executable files from being written. Matt, I'm no security expert, but I think uploads should be disabled by default. Then use fine grained permissions to allow uploads for specific users. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-04-25 18:47:38
|
Greetings,
There have been several complaints about Documents having problems with
the recent security measures. As you may (or not) know, phpWebSite
parses all uploaded files for specific phrases. If it sees those
phrases, it won't allow the file to be written to the system.
Normally, this works pretty well. However, some of the phrases catch
words in the document. "dl(" is a frequent sticky wicket.
There are two other backup measures added to the parser. First, we
removed the ability for anonymous users to upload documents in
announcements and calendar. Second, phpWebSite checks the file extension
and prohibits executable files from being written.
My question: is this sufficient? I have turned the security parser to
FALSE (i.e. off) in CVS to try and prevent these problems. I would like
some feedback as to whether this will make phpWebSite insecure.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew McNaney
Electronic Student Services
Appalachian State University
http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu
|
|
From: Brian W. B. <br...@tu...> - 2005-04-20 13:03:29
|
> Whom will be your successor? We are currently doing a search. I will announce Steven's replacement when we make a hire. That being said, Steven has been wonderful to work with and has made lasting contributions to the phpWebSite project. He will be sorely missed by all of us here at Appalachian. We wish him the very best in all his future endeavors. Kind Regards, Brian W. Brown Director, Electronic Student Services Room 269, John Thomas Hall Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 vox: 828-262-7124 http://ess.appstate.edu/ http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu/ |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-04-20 11:47:33
|
FYI in case you haven't seen it. http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/holes/story/0,10801,101172,00.html?source=x10 http://www.php.net/downloads.php#v4 -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Tom G. <me...@me...> - 2005-04-20 07:12:09
|
Best of luck. Whom will be your successor? Tom |
|
From: Kenneth P. <ken...@gm...> - 2005-04-19 20:17:49
|
Steven, Best wishes from here also...! Good luck out there in the real world, you are going to do just fine! I'm going to miss you, but I'm also looking forward to your contribution to= =20 the community in your new role. Regards and respect. Kenneth On 4/18/05, Greg Tassone <gr...@ta...> wrote: >=20 > Steven, >=20 > Best wishes on your new ventures. It sounds like a good plan given your > goals. >=20 > Thanks for your help over the past couple of years. >=20 > Greg >=20 >=20 > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 13:22 -0400, Steven Levin wrote: > > Hello Everyone, > > > > The subject says it all. This Thursday will be my last day at the > > university. Working on this project with Matt and the community over > > the past couple of years has been a great experience for me. I couldn't > > have asked for a nicer group of people to work with. An opportunity has > > presented itself for me to get my feet wet in the business world which = I > > feel is important thing to do while I am still young. I wish nothing > > but success for the future of the project. Long live phpWebSite!! > > -- > > Steven > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users= . > > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D6595&alloc_id=3D14396&op=3Dclick > > _______________________________________________ > > Phpwebsite-developers mailing list > > Php...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpwebsite-developers >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Kenneth |
|
From: Greg T. <gr...@ta...> - 2005-04-18 18:21:28
|
Steven, Best wishes on your new ventures. It sounds like a good plan given your goals. Thanks for your help over the past couple of years. Greg On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 13:22 -0400, Steven Levin wrote: > Hello Everyone, >=20 > The subject says it all. This Thursday will be my last day at the > university. Working on this project with Matt and the community over > the past couple of years has been a great experience for me. I couldn't > have asked for a nicer group of people to work with. An opportunity has > presented itself for me to get my feet wet in the business world which I > feel is important thing to do while I am still young. I wish nothing > but success for the future of the project. Long live phpWebSite!! > -- > Steven >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D6595&alloc_id=3D14396&op=3Dclick > _______________________________________________ > Phpwebsite-developers mailing list > Php...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpwebsite-developers |
|
From: Steven L. <st...@tu...> - 2005-04-18 17:33:25
|
Hello Everyone,
The subject says it all. This Thursday will be my last day at the
university. Working on this project with Matt and the community over
the past couple of years has been a great experience for me. I couldn't
have asked for a nicer group of people to work with. An opportunity has
presented itself for me to get my feet wet in the business world which I
feel is important thing to do while I am still young. I wish nothing
but success for the future of the project. Long live phpWebSite!!
--
Steven
|
5 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
