Line 122? There's no query there: did you mod functions.php in any way?
5,976 2006-05-13 19:09
Re: globals not global when integrating with WordPress (9 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations)
5,977 2006-05-13 16:48
Re: Problems with Hotmail accounts (8 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)
Can I have a link to the forums to try and see the issue?
5,978 2006-05-13 16:25
Re: open links in new tab/window (9 replies, posted in Feature requests)
No 
It's not a matter of right and wrong, it has to do with giving the user choice. With PunBB's way the user has choice, whereas the other way the user doesn't 
Plus, as Connor also said, without javascript you would have invalid XHTML
And personally I don't think it's annoying to have to open a new window if you want one: I just hit Ctrl and then click to load a new tab
5,979 2006-05-13 10:03
Re: globals not global when integrating with WordPress (9 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations)
Does Wordpress use a $db variable that interferes?
5,980 2006-05-12 21:12
Re: random for ads on punbb (21 replies, posted in Programming)
I would assume it just involves replacing the PSA ads with the correct code
5,981 2006-05-12 10:49
Re: "Hidden" PHP errors (3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 bug reports)
Yeah, cache files are loaded something like this
// Load cached quickjump
@include PUN_ROOT.'cache/cache_quickjump_'.$pun_user['g_id'].'.php';
if (!defined('PUN_QJ_LOADED'))
{
require_once PUN_ROOT.'include/cache.php';
generate_quickjump_cache($pun_user['g_id']);
require PUN_ROOT.'cache/cache_quickjump_'.$pun_user['g_id'].'.php';
}If there is a problem (like for some reason Apache can't read from the folder anymore), strange things happen (ie: with the quickjump the only part that loads is a small bit of the footer)
5,982 2006-05-12 10:29
Re: Error: Unable to fetch user info. (25 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)
5,983 2006-05-12 10:00
Re: Error: Unable to fetch user info. (25 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)
enable debug mode, paste the full error
And I don't have any issue (I'm not logged in there)
5,984 2006-05-12 02:06
Re: "Hidden" PHP errors (3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 bug reports)
There is a similar issue with config.php (a parse error on that page will cause the whole page to fail silently)
And the issue also affects cache files (and in fact I have to investigate that a bit more, since it might be the cause of some other bug reports)
5,985 2006-05-12 02:04
Topic: "Hidden" PHP errors (3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 bug reports)
I can't remember if I've already written something about this or not
If you make a mistake in editing, say, lang/[language]/index.php, then you get an error like
Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING, expecting ')' in C:\Apache\Apache2\htdocs\upload\lang\English\index.php on line 7
However, if you make a mistake in lang/[language]/common.php, you get a blank page
Why?
From common.php
// Attempt to load the common language file
@include PUN_ROOT.'lang/'.$pun_user['language'].'/common.php';
if (!isset($lang_common))
exit('There is no valid language pack \''.pun_htmlspecialchars($pun_user['language']).'\' installed. Please reinstall a language of that name.');My proposed fix would remove the @ and do a file_exists before the include, something like this:
// Attempt to load the common language file
if (file_exists(PUN_ROOT.'lang/'.$pun_user['language'].'/common.php')
{
include PUN_ROOT.'lang/'.$pun_user['language'].'/common.php';
if (!isset($lang_common))
exit('There is no valid language pack \''.pun_htmlspecialchars($pun_user['language']).'\' installed. Please reinstall a language of that name.');
}
else
exit('There is no valid language pack \''.pun_htmlspecialchars($pun_user['language']).'\' installed. Please reinstall a language of that name.');It should accomplish the same goal as the other code while also ensuring that errors in the common lang file get noticed
5,986 2006-05-12 01:55
Re: Missing home (4 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)
Works fine for me...
5,987 2006-05-12 00:38
Re: Quick Question (2 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)
Yes, the database isn't in one of the files 
5,988 2006-05-11 22:43
Re: MD5 hash password is hackable ? (19 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)
elbekko wrote:
Errm, you can download the code to break an md5 encryption in less than an hour. Didn't try it yet, but I certainly will.
A. MD5 is not encryption. It is one way hashing.
B. You need an MD5 hash for it to find a collision with in the first place
5,989 2006-05-11 21:17
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
My bad for some reason I was thinking you where banning the IP not the host since that's all you been talking about for the past 5 days.
Actually, I've been talking about how host banning, except in cases where you want to ban an IP, is mostly useless
And if that's what you thought it's not what you said: you said
Then I would work my way to your IP and then add in your host mask and add a wild card for nycmny assuming NycmNY is from New York and since I have no one from NY that goes to my site I have little care about who else I?m banning using verizon in NY (pool-71-247-100-161.*.east.verizon.net)
You were talking about banning on the "Verizon in NYC" level, not the "Verizon with IP 71.247.100.161" level, although the IP you gave was at the latter level
Now with the above you posted what?s that tell you? It's easier to ban using the host then IP
Err, not particularly
Like I said, banning 71.247.*.* is just as effective, and it seems to me that there's no easier way to do it (other than by banning any nyc verizon.net addresses, which I already said was the one advantage for hostnames in a couple cases)
And my point is you can ban the same if not more then using IP banning.
Not IP banning with wildcards
Like I said, the only way I've seen hostnames have a distinct advantage is when there is information like the state in the hostname. That's balanced out IMO by the disadvantage it has when used with hostnames that don't have IPs in them, like some of the ones I gave.
Also the above addresses are not confusing, in fact there almost all easier then the first one you posted.
Then please tell me how you'd ban them with a hostname versus an IP range and how the hostname would be superior. I can see how to ban IP ranges in a lot of them: I can't however see where hostname banning gives you an advantage other than in banning the ISP (unless you want to ban all dialup or broadband users from a certain ISP, which I would class as excessive)
FYI like I said 3 times already, each host has there own method of doing there string not all have country, state, town, city. Not all have routers yada yada.
Indeed: and without those things hostnames become at best as useful as IP ranges and at worst useless (when the ISP assigns seemingly random numbers to the hostname).
And I'm all for not talking about it: last post here for me until I notice someone bringing up the topic again
Edit: Oh, and I agree with what Connor said
5,990 2006-05-11 00:06
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
Wrong, by banning every octet (*.*.*.*) your banning the whole ISP not just their state
Lets say we do ban every octet like you sugested and I use Verizon in the state of Maine. If I try to browse the forum id be banned also since you banned the ISP octet
Wrong
pool-*-*-*-*.nycmny.east.verizon.net does not ban the whole ISP
Why?
Notice the nycmny part.
Now, look at pool-71-248-10-87.bltmmd.east.verizon.net (another valid IP range)
Now, tell me: how does banning pool-*-*-*-*.nycmny.east.verizon.net do that?
All it does is ban any IPs from Verizon in NYC, which is NOT what your thing does
Now, if I banned *.verizon.net, I would be banning all of Verizon
Also on your second question d51A599E8.access.telenet.be is weird
And yet it isn't
How about toronto-HSE-ppp3959157.sympatico.ca?
Or 154.85-200-22.bkkb.no?
Or ACA90D41.ipt.aol.com?
Or CPE000f3d36f1bb-CM0011ae8d72e8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com?
Or 203-217-95-78.dyn.iinet.net.au?
Or fl-71-3-115-202.dyn.sprint-hsd.net? (This one can be done relatively easily)
Or ip173-168-59-62.adsl.versatel.nl?
Or ip173-180-59-62.dialup.versatel.nl?
Or host86-137-247-148.range86-137.btcentralplus.com?
Or 64.178.114.65.dynamic.dejazzd.com?
Or 12-219-18-153.client.mchsi.com?
Or dpc6747129199.direcpc.com?
(OK, I'm getting bored coming up with examples, although I do love IRC )
My point is that "odd" hostnames are not uncommon, and thus are not all that odd
These are all real hostnames. Now, tell me how you can use these other than banning ISPs or IP ranges or a specific IP?
Host banning is useful in a very small number of cases and in those cases it relies on the hope that ISPs don't route their customers through routers outside of the area in the hostname for whatever reason (like, say, enough of their hardware goes down that they have to route people to other routers).
It's useful and works on a bunch of ISPs in the US and I'm sure some internationally but I believe the vast majority don't list the location of IPs in the hostnames and thus it's useless on them except to ban the ISP
5,991 2006-05-10 10:29
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
Well, except pool-71-247-100-161.*.east.verizon.net is the equivalent of banning my IP and pool-71-247-*-*.*.east.verizon.net is the equivlalent of banning 71.247.*.*
The problem is that the part you were wildcarding that wasn't my IP doesn't change. To ban people from NYC you should have banned pool-*-*-*-*.nycmny.east.verizon.net, except as I said that can be achieved equally well by banning using an IP and wildcards
Just out of curiosity, what would you do with this hostname?
d51A599E8.access.telenet.be
5,992 2006-05-08 21:10
Re: why not session? (24 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)
Alli wrote:
Smartys wrote:Also, what's the benefits to a session? You don't want to cache the data in a session because it could have been updated. There's no way you can really store it.
what do you mean?
I mean what I said
Sessions are useful if you're using them to store data about the user. PunBB can't store much data in a session because it would make it hard to update when it gets updated. So, why use a session when the cookie serves just as well?
5,993 2006-05-08 19:30
Re: why not session? (24 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)
Jansson: I don't think that's why, becaused a leaked PunBB cookie is potentially much worse than a session ID (a session ID needs to be kept active: if the user doesn't change their password the cookie is always valid).
I think one reason would be that session data stored normally as files in a shared server environment would be vulnerable to anyone else on the server reading the data
Also, what's the benefits to a session? You don't want to cache the data in a session because it could have been updated. There's no way you can really store it.
5,994 2006-05-08 01:43
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
Theres more you can do with hosts banning its not made just for banning an ISP or ip. Read a bit on it since I dont have time right now to post fully all the things you can do with it.
I've tried to but I've been unable to really find much other than banning an ISP (when it is quite useful).
Could you point me in the right direction or give me some examples?
And btw by dafault would be 10 seconds but by putting a timeout time to override it you could set it to 1 and it would still sucessfully work. but Iv tested without putting in a timeout time and it seems to work in 1 or 2 seconds. So if it was to be added im sure putting in a time out time to override the default would make it less of a hastle for people like you.
I don't think you can set a timeout though unless you rewrite the function (ie: http://us3.php.net/manual/en/function.g … .php#46869)
And I don't think Rickard would implement something that would be used on every page that could potentially not work on a lot of servers
The slowness you talk about is only if you code it wrong. Theres endless ways of doing it to speed up the process. Dont just read somthing and assume thats what it is and thats the only way you can do it.
I don't think it's necessarily coding it "wrong," from what I read it sounds more like not anticipating the delay from DNS servers when a lookup doesn't return anything. It's a feature of the function. You certainly can write your own function with timeouts, etc but that forces you to rely on external things that some servers might not have and others might have but might not allow
I do agree with you though (although I didn't before) that one call to gethostbyaddr per pageview probably won't add enough generation time to be noteworthy in most cases. However, I still haven't been able to find a use for this other than banning an ISP that may have multiple IP ranges but keeps the same hostname format
5,995 2006-05-07 23:27
Re: Mass e-mail software (19 replies, posted in General discussion)
quaker wrote:
snapsolutions, what is that?
The mass emailer Rickard wrote
5,996 2006-05-06 10:03
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
Im not banning the whole host. A host name is made up of different parts and can be different depending on the ISP. For example some have ip, state or country, isp router, isp host name (ex. A-12-23-12-23-lund-nh-comcast.com). By banning the correct parts you will not effect the rest of the users that use that host.
Err, I'm aware of what a hostname is: are you?
For example, my hostname is pool-71-247-100-161.nycmny.east.verizon.net
My IP is 71.247.100.161
How would you go about banning me?
Personally, I would ban 71.247.*.*
Why?
Because all the IPs for my area are in that block of IPs.
Now, I'd love to see an example of banning with a hostname that couldn't be done with an IP except where you're trying to ban a whole ISP
Now that?s silly. Allowing guests to post is like saying hey spam me now! At least with register users you can keep tabs on them and see what there doing. Guests there free to do anything banning them would do nothing by IP.
Lets just agree to disagree on that then
Ill agree with you but still security is security. Saying that you wouldn?t like an extra method of keeping your forums safe from spammers, scammers, and jerks is your opinion I guess.
It's that I don't need it
I just find it weird that you don?t want any extra-added security. This is like saying hey lets have sex without a condom because I took the birth control pill! But wait its not 100% protective just like IP banning. Id take security over any other feature that people suggest anyday.
Host banning is not 100% protective. However, I find it only necessary when I need to ban an ISP completely, and I can do that other ways.
It's actually much more like riding your bike and saying "hey, I don't feel safe enough with this helmet: can I wear another one over it?"
Its one thing to read then it is to do. Since PunBB is already small and lightweight you wouldn?t notice any slow load times at all. At the most an extra 2 seconds.
Untrue: at least from what I read 10 seconds seems to be the default timeout for the lookup. Of course, that probably varies depending on the server's settings (ie: on my computer here, DNS takes ~5 seconds to return that it found nothing)
I have nothing against anyone wanting to have hostname banning, I just feel that the unnecessary slowness it might cause would be bad as well as that in 99% of cases it's just a redundant feature
5,997 2006-05-05 10:57
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
Ya proxys and stuff. But then you can just ban that whole proxy's range and not deal with it again since if a user is gonna use a proxy chances are its only to post back to something someone said as the final word. So if that happends then ban the range and be done with it
I didn't mean proxies necessarily, I meant someone who gets a new IP from their ISP every time because they feel like doing so
And you can't ban a range if they keep using new proxies
Its funny you say that since PunBB wont let me ban anyother way without first giving a username.
<span>The username to ban (case insensitive). The next page will let you enter a custom IP and e-mail. If you just want to ban a specific IP/IP-range or e-mail just leave it blank.</span>Looks fine to me...
Also if the forum is set up for registerd users to post only then the host banning would work fine. If your letting guests post then theres no need for a ban system to begin with since your opening your self up for spam, flaming and junk.
Now that's just silly
If you have guest posting you need the ban system even more to deal with the spam potential. And there are many legitimate uses for guest posting in forums (say, allowing a Bugs forum to be open to Guests so people can report not being able to login)
Well a few people on here have plainly said that Pun is for small communitys and I find that sad how its being labled as that.
I'd be interested to see where you found that: I usually go by this, personally
And like I said, it's used in large communities
Host banning is a major feature!
Lets agree to disagree then: personally, I think IPs are a better solution 99% of the time (there are times when the ISP has enough ranges that you would use this, but banning a whole ISP is extreme in any case)
The forums I run for a number of major sites need the host banning in order to filter the rif raf. IP banning dosnt work and by banning a range I basicly kill my whole fan base
Then how does banning a hostname, which is essentially a larger range, NOT ban a whole lot of people?
Also I dont see how you think host banning will effect the load time alot. I just wrote up a small host banning script for one of my sites and didnt notice a thing on a cable line
I read the comments on the PHP function page for gethostbyaddr
5,998 2006-05-04 21:52
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
What do you mean routinely? Like dialup?
No, like someone who understands that they'll probably get banned and thus gets a new IP (and thus a new hostname) on a regular basis
then they would still of course get the banned page because there username is banned along with their last used ip and e-mail address.
Except that's one specific case: you shouldn't force people to have to enter username, etc before entering hostnames
Plus, bans are supposed to prevent viewing the forum in general: just because they're banned doesn't mean they can't post as a Guest
Ya I can see how this would be a better MOD but I don't understand why PunBB is being limited just to the audience of "small community's"
It isn't
There are plenty of large boards using PunBB
The key thing about PunBB is that it comes without a lot of the bloat that other forum packages have. However, if you want a PM system, you can install a mod for that. That way, while everyone starts from a small, clean, fast base, they can take that base and expand it in any way they want
I find it to be a very nice script and with some new features such as host banning it would work out for major community's
As I said, it does work out for major communities.
And saying that host banning is an important feature to a major community is like saying that a forum mascot is necessary for your forum members to be happy (yeah, I just made that up off the top of my head)
PunBB is not meant to have every single feature under the sun. Yes, that means you might have to do a little more work through modding. However, in general, it provides you with cleaner and faster code.
5,999 2006-05-04 20:59
Re: insert search index words (3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)
alter table prefixsearch_words change word word varchar(20) binary not null default ''Replace prefix with the db_prefix for your PunBB board, run that SQL query
6,000 2006-05-04 19:34
Re: Banning based on hostname (27 replies, posted in Feature requests)
Not to be rude but did you read my other posts fully? If a user has the "Remember my login" and I ban there IP, Username, e-mail and hostname. The next time they view the page the normal ban system would take effect (IE. IP, username, e-mail).
What's to say they don't routinely disconnect/reconnect?
And yes, I read your other posts: I just believe that host banning is not a necessary feature and would be better off as a mod