Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 December 8

= December 8 =

php.ini
Having recently installed xampp I am trying to integrate a form in a web page that will send me an email when sent. Currently I have the form but I am stumped at what to change in the php.ini file to allow me to do this. I've found the part: What do I change to enable my send button to allow the form through?

Also how do you get IE to open .php web pages rather than open or save them?

Many thanks in advance :) 93.186.31.240 (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For windows, you need to set your smtp server and "from" email address. The settings in php.ini will look like:
 * SMTP = your.ip.provider.smtp.server.com
 * sendmail_from = your@email.com
 * Of course, you'll want to restart to ensure the new php.ini changes are loaded. As for loading the php page in IE, I assume you are trying to use "file - open" to open the PHP page.  That will not work.  You have to use IE to load the page through the webserver on your computer.  So, you will load the pages with a URL like http://localhost/my_test.php .  That means you have to save the files in the proper directory for your local webserver and ensure the local webserver is running. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently I'm just running the server off my memory stick so I'm moving around with it. Is there anything I can put in the php.ini file to reflect this?
 * In regards to the internet provider where do I find this. (This way I can test it on my home computer) sorry I'm new at smtp 93.186.31.239 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What SMTP server are you using in your email program? That is the SMTP server you will want to use.  An alternative is to download and run an SMTP server on your local machine.  However, your ISP may block traffic from a local SMTP server since 99% of the time home-run SMTP servers are used just to send spam. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Furthermore, reputable e-mail providers will probably refuse messages sent from your computer (and most other computers) anyway. Setting up a SMTP server that can actually send messages is, apparently, pretty complicated. 118.96.154.36 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this is too much effort to go to for an assignment and is something to look into in the future when I don't have to stick to a tight deadline. Your point about ISPs blocking the traffic is a good one and that coupled with the very useful blog link is probably just as useful to me now, as actually getting it working. Assignments are boring if they all read the same and this will give me something to explore when talking about php.ini and the difficulty of passing forms through to email. Thanks you both so much for your time :) 195.49.180.89 (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is necroing forum threads a bad idea?
There were some unanswered questions / unsolved issues that I sought to solve through forum threads over 5 years ago so I made replies to seek follow-ups. Therefore, I made the first replies in over 5 years on some threads at MMORPG.com.

I got some follow-up answers and updates, and felt kinda satisfied from them. I was once even told, "Nice necro." and took it as a compliment. Then I found some kind of thrill in necromancing threads so I kept doing it to a total of 15-20 threads.

Several days later, an admin emailed me personally asking me to please stop necroing threads, and that I'd be permabanned the next time I committed a similar offense. Much to my consternation, he deleted all the threads that I necromanced. I had to copy them from the Google Cache and re-paste them onto my blogsite in order to recover some of my posting history. I only had the energy and willingness to salvage some of them, as they would altogether be too many to salvage.

So really, why is it a bad idea to necromance years-old forum threads on various forums? --129.130.33.179 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Preemption: Yes, but why is it annoying to some? --129.130.33.179 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's similar to here or not, but I will comment on why replying to Ref Desk Q's in the archives which no longer appear on the front page is a bad idea:


 * 1) The original poster is unlikely to see the answer provided.


 * 2) Other people who might refute an incorrect post don't notice a post in the archives, so incorrect answers can stand, as if they were correct.


 * 3) People reading through the archives might be confused with an answer that seems out of step with the others, such as "What's the cost of a 4 Gb flash drive ?". The answers from a couple years ago might be quite different from recent answers.


 * Some of these issues could be addressed by bringing the archive back to the active page. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Forum threads are basically extended discussions. While they do last longer than a normal "live" conversation, they do die after a while when nobody posts to them.  After a certain amount of time (many forums will specify 6 months, a year, or even just a few weeks depending on activity), the thread might be considered dead and bringing it back up without a very good reason is considered rude.  The active members of a forum also might change over time, so the original people discussing the topic very well might not be active anymore so a more productive way to bring that topic up again might be to start a new topic that will include whatever members are active at the moment. StuRat's points for wikipedia are valid for forums as well.  Many forums I've been to with rules specific to thread necromancy say that the best way to bring a dead topic back is to post a new thread and refer to specific posts in the dead topic via links or quotes. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) People don't look at dates, they assume that the front page of a forum will be full of recent conversations. If a six-page conversation appears that wasn't there when they checked the forum two days ago, they assume they've missed a flurry of conversation.
 * 2) People no longer remember the conversation, so to make an informed reply they have to read the whole damn thing to avoid looking like an idiot. All 30 pages of it.  99% of which will be a waste of time anyway.     Better to start fresh.
 * 3) Depending on the topic, the factual information in the thread may now be out of date, but bringing it up top makes it "look" newly posted to the casual observer.
 * 4) A forum thread is an analog for an in-person conversation. You don't walk up to your neighbor whom you haven't seen in a week and say "That's only partially true, the situation in Iraq has changed significantly since Obama was elected.",  No, you walk up and say "I've been doing some reading about what you said last week about withdrawing our troops from the middle east."  That is to say, you start a new conversation that only references the old one.
 * The moderator probably deleted your threads because his moderation tools didn't provide an easy way to re-bury the thread.
 * (Oh, and the guy that said "Nice Necro" was being sarcastic. He was making fun of you by pointing out your faux pas.)APL (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it depends entirely on the rules and culture of the particular board. Some places disapprove of it for the above reasons, others actively encourage it, and it's not even possible to speculate on which one is right without knowing anything about the community.  I think it's more likely that the community is being inconsistent than that "Nice Necro" was sarcastic.  Very few places have as well-defined rules as Wikipedia, and Wikipedia culture can only barely be called "consistent".  And where Wikipedia's rules are ill-defined, it is often by good design.  WP:ENGVAR is a victory for style!  Ignore All Rules is a victory for the rule of law!!  Long live rough consensus and working prose!


 * Uh, sorry, I may have gotten carried away there. But policy differs from place to place.  Paul (Stansifer) 04:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Join a Facebook network: confirmation email
I tried to join my new employer's Facebook network last night. You have to provide your official email address (so they can verify the domain-name) and then click the link when they send you a message. But when I got into work there was no message.

Does it usually take 24+ hours for these things to arrive? Or (plausible!) is it possible that my employer automatically filters out Facebook emails? In which case, what can I do? Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► inspectorate ─╢ 16:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Confirmation emails normally go out right away, but there could be a delay if they have a problem. If the filter is the problem, use another email address. If you don't have another, you can get a free one from Google and many other sites.  One possibility you haven't mentioned is that you could have written the email address down wrong when you signed up.  They normally make you type it twice, to make this less likely, but some people just cut and paste the first one to the 2nd spot, thus disabling this safeguard. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You seem to have misread my question. I tried to join my new employer's Facebook network last night. You have to provide your official email address (so they can verify the domain-name) and then click the link when they send you a message. But when I got into work there was no message. Does it usually take 24+ hours for these things to arrive? Or (plausible!) is it possible that my employer automatically filters out Facebook emails? In which case, what can I do? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► senator ─╢ 17:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it must be your employer's email address, as the won't give you access if you use another ? If so, then you'd better check with computer security at your company and have that site white listed. StuRat (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can talk to the sys-admin of the company, if there is one. Or talk to your boss? These things are normally sent out immediately, but I guess there might be a possibility that there's a human factor in the chain - perhaps checking the email address is not automated? Still. Sounds like you have a problem only the firm can fix. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Facebook run approval-only networks? If so, facebook might be waiting for someone (probably HR or IT) to respond to your join-request email. CS Miller (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not approval only. If, say, I wanted to join the Microsoft employees' network, I'd have to prove via a email address "click-this-link-to-confirm" thingy that I had a @microsoft.com account. There's no human element in it. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Chrome notebook pilot program
Anyone know if/when Google are planning to extend their Chrome notebook pilot program outside the US (specifically, to the UK)? Or what is the best route to contact Google about this? the wub "?!"  17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Assembly dereferencing using 's
Hi,

I'm not sure how to use parenthesis in assembly. I heard an explanation say that parenthesis dereferences the pointer contained in a register, eg. (eax) == *eax. where the * is like a star used before a variable in c to dereference.

I'm still not sure when this would be necessary or how it is used. Could someone explain this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on the assembler syntax, and yes, in some assemblers (eax) means the same thing as *eax. The parenthesis notation is useful when you have indexed addresses like 8(esp), since  8*esp looks like multiplication. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you're writing x86 assembly in AT&T syntax since only x86 has a register named "eax" and only AT&T syntax uses parentheses for this purpose. Some assembly language instructions interpret a register as an integer or a string of bits, for example, while others interpret it as a memory address and do something with the data at that address. The parentheses are used to distinguish between those cases. For example, addl %eax, %ebx adds the number in eax to the number in ebx, while addl (%eax), %ebx reads a number from the memory address given by eax and adds that to the number in ebx, and addl %eax, (%ebx) adds the number in <tt>eax</tt> to the number at the memory address given by <tt>ebx</tt>. The fourth combination, <tt>addl (%eax), (%ebx)</tt> is not allowed, not because it wouldn't make sense but because there happens to be no single machine instruction that does that. Likewise, you can't write <tt>((%eax))</tt> to double-dereference a pointer because there's no machine instruction that supports that addressing mode. -- BenRG (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)