LWP::UserAgent question

A

a

Hi
I would like to use LWP::UserAgent to login the web site and process the web
content. Then I should use $ua -> credentials($netloc, $realm, $uname,
$pass)
What is $netloc, $realm, $uname, and $pass?
Can someone post an example to demonstrate?
Thanks
 
J

John Bokma

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Last warning: next time I report this annoying piece of garbage as
Usenet abuse. I am sure that running bots, especially the piece of
crap you are using, are a ToS violation of Giganews.

You can't fix an issue by causing a bigger one.
 
J

John Bokma

a said:
Hi
I would like to use LWP::UserAgent to login the web site and process
the web content. Then I should use $ua -> credentials($netloc, $realm,
$uname, $pass)
What is $netloc, $realm, $uname, and $pass?
Can someone post an example to demonstrate?

First, don't multipost.

Second, if it's basic authentication, you can use the example given under
"ACCESS TO PROTECTED DOCUMENTS" in lwpcook.


Examples of the use of credentials is under HTTP Authentication of lwptut.

"

$browser->credentials(
'servername:portnumber',
'realm-name',
'username' => 'password'
);


"

Note that the realm-name is displayed when you get the pop up window that
allows you to log in.


(type on the command line: perldoc lwptut )
 
J

Jürgen Exner

a said:
[ snip and ignore MULTIPOSTED message ]

I think this multiposting bot is a great idea.
However I would suggest to tune it down a bit. Just make the text
informative instead of accusing, remove those heavy borders, etc.
A 3 to 4 line message with a link to more information is really all that is
needed. No need for those KB and KB of heavy shots.

jue
 
T

Tad McClellan

a said:
[ snip and ignore MULTIPOSTED message ]

Questions or comments are welcome #


Please undeploy it forthwith.

# Q-Why am I doing this? A--For a better usenet.


It isn't working. This "cure" is worse than the disease.

# Some folks try to
# discourage job postings; some discourage off-topic posts. I try # ^
^
# to discourage multiposts


No _you_ don't.

Your _machine_ does.

Not the same thing.

# If you don't wish to be bothered with these auto-generated #
# responses, please killfile the scanner. #


If you don't stop this right quick, expect more than the scanner
to be killfiled...

# But I choose to run this #
# scanner anonymously


Bad choice.

It hurts the credibility of your message so much as to make the
postings worthless.



( I will note however that multiposting was the primary reason that
I stopped participating in the beginners mailing list, way back
when.
)
 
D

Dr.Ruud

(e-mail address removed) schreef:
[ snip and ignore MULTIPOSTED message ]

**********************************************************************
********** PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD ***********
**********************************************************************

This message has been multiposted as indicated by these message IDs:
<JoPDg.386093$Mn5.194189@pd7tw3no>
<GbPDg.382930$iF6.158066@pd7tw2no>


s/</<
and you should put them both in the References: header field (without
the "of course).
 
D

DJ Stunks

John said:
Jürgen Exner said:
[ snip and ignore MULTIPOSTED message ]

I think this multiposting bot is a great idea.

Me no, and I have reported it for what I see it is right now: Usenet
abuse.

What happened to your "last warning", Bokma? Itchy reporting finger?
Perhaps David can hook you up with his source for his bot and you could
modify it to create your own bot reporting bot. The downside, however,
is that, while more efficient, this approach would almost certainly
take away from what appears to be a very enjoyable pastime for you.

- Jake "Free Xah" Peavy
 
J

John Bokma

DJ Stunks said:
John said:
Jürgen Exner said:
(e-mail address removed) wrote:
[ snip and ignore MULTIPOSTED message ]

I think this multiposting bot is a great idea.

Me no, and I have reported it for what I see it is right now: Usenet
abuse.

What happened to your "last warning", Bokma? Itchy reporting finger?

I decided to let the bot owner's Usenet provider decide ;-)
- Jake "Free Xah" Peavy

Ha ha ha. If you're real (which I doubt), give Xah some momey for his
process against DreamHost. It will increase the joy tenfold :-D.
 
U

usenet

John said:
Last warning: next time I report this annoying piece of garbage as
Usenet abuse.
I am sure that running bots, especially the piece of
crap you are using, are a ToS violation of Giganews.

I do not believe it is a ToS violation; GigaNews' terms may be found
here:
http://www.giganews.com/legal/aup.html
You can't fix an issue by causing a bigger one.

Prehaps you will be kind enough to explain your objections. I have, on
numerious occasions (along with many others) flagged multiposted
messages (manually). I don't recall that anyone has ever been critical
of this practice, and such notifications are common courtesy in
professional newsgroups.

Now I write a bot to do this and several people complain (but don't
really say why). I thought folks like us write Perl scripts to automate
repetitive manual tasks.

Is it the fact that it's a bot that bothers you? That would seem an
odd objection for a programmer. Or do you not like the content of the
auto-messages? I'm not an English major - I would be happy to consider
content edits. But I don't want to simply furnish a link - I've seen
lots of links given to lots of OP's (Posting Guidelines, etc) which
seem to be ignored. Prehaps a direct reply such as this would be more
effective.

Or do you think my code is crap? I would be happy to post it for peer
review.

Regarding the length of the message: There is a lot of "introductory"
info there which was designed to be temporary (as the message says). I
have removed this text, and the message is now down to a much more
resonable size (about 60 lines).

If you don't like seeing the messages, you may killfile the scanner
(just as you may killfile the Faq-O-Matic bot or the Posting Guidelines
bot). If you think I'm a jerk for doing this then you may killfile me
as well. But, first, I hope you would at least give me a chance to
understand and address any concerns you have.
 
J

John W. Krahn

John said:
(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Last warning: next time I report this annoying piece of garbage as
Usenet abuse. I am sure that running bots, especially the piece of
crap you are using, are a ToS violation of Giganews.

You can't fix an issue by causing a bigger one.

Tell that to Bush. ;-)


John
 
J

John Bokma

If you don't like seeing the messages, you may killfile the scanner
(just as you may killfile the Faq-O-Matic bot or the Posting Guidelines
bot). If you think I'm a jerk for doing this then you may killfile me
as well. But, first, I hope you would at least give me a chance to
understand and address any concerns you have.

Netiquette shouldn't be enforced by posting bots. Moreover, a bot with
such an impact (several messages a day I have seen so far) should probably
be voted for (or against).

And no, I am not going to add every bot to a kill file that some
programmer thinks is nifty to run on Usenet. As a programmer I appreciate
bots, but I appreciate the human touch more.
 
U

usenet

John said:
Netiquette shouldn't be enforced by posting bots.

Hmmm. Is that the essence of your objection?

I agree that it is very difficult in most instances and thus should not
even be attempted. Natural language is difficult to parse. I might
TRY to write a job-listing bot (and save Mr. Adler some trouble) but I
don't think it would be very effective, and I would never even try.

But, if someone could write an AI module that could reliably parse
natural language for meaning and intent, it would change everything.
Then, I COULD parse-and-flag job-posting messages (and I would). But I
can't do that (so I don't).

But it's easy to detect a multipost with a program (without AI). It is
fully possible to eliminate false positives. A few false-negatives may
slip through (where the OP tweaks the content) and that's to be
expected. The majority of multiposts CAN be identified (and, in fact, I
cannot recall a single multipost which was not a simple cut-and-paste -
I did go back and research the multiposts that I'vemanually flagged and
every single one of them would have been flagged by my bot).
Moreover, a bot with such an impact (several messages a day I have seen
so far) should probably be voted for (or against).

Where are you seeing such volume??? The scanner was deployed last
Thursday, and as of now (wee hours of Monday morning in my $TZ), I've
only observed two messages get flagged (and my tracking database agrees
with my observation). And the first message was an improperly flagged
crosspost because I had not un-commented a line during testing (grrr).
Had the bug been fixed initially, only one message so far would have
been flagged. That doesn't strike me as a high-impact process - one
message in 3.5 days.

But I am not opposed to the idea of a vote, as you suggest. I wish to
be a good usenet citizen in whatever group I participate in. That's
why I strive to adhere to the Posting Guidelines, and often recommend
that others do so as well. If the community at large doesn't like this
bot then I will certainly shut it down (without anyone needing to
resort to demands or threats). If folks think the bot is OK but the
message sucks, I can change it (and, note, I have removed most of the
"introductory text" but no message has yet been flagged under the new
parameters with the shorter reply-message). I'm a reasonable guy; I
can adapt to whatever the community consensus happens to be, and will
gladly do so.
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Tad said:
It isn't working.

How is it not working? We know that guidelines alone don't work...
This "cure" is worse than the disease.

Are manual objections better? If so, in what way?
No _you_ don't.

Your _machine_ does.

Not the same thing.

What significance would that have?

Personally I support David's initiative.
 
S

Sherm Pendley

a said:
Hi
I would like to use LWP::UserAgent to login the web site and process the web
content. Then I should use $ua -> credentials($netloc, $realm, $uname,
$pass)
What is $netloc, $realm, $uname, and $pass?
Can someone post an example to demonstrate?

Have a look at "perldoc lwpcook". There's an example of using this method in
there.

sherm--
 
S

Sherm Pendley

**********************************************************************
********** PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD ***********
**********************************************************************

Grow up. I intend to reply to each and every thread in which your little
whine-bot posts. Self-appointed "net nannies" are *far* more annoying than
any amount of cross- and or multi-posting.

sherm--
 
J

John Bokma

Hmmm. Is that the essence of your objection?

Ok, a short reply (hah). From what I have seen so far, your bot replies to
each multiposted message (correct me if I am wrong), in each group.
Meaning if someone multipost in 3 groups what we might get is:

1 post per group (3 in total)
1 reply by your bot per post (3 in total)
0 or more possible replies per post by people not being aware of the
multipost. [1]
0 or more angry replies by people who discovered the multipost. [1]
0 or more people replying to your bot replies (complaints, asking what it
is.)

Does it stop multiposting: no
Does it add a lot of noise to the group: I am afraid that the answer is
yes.

Personally I can live with 2 kinds of bots: info bots that start a thread
(post a FAQ, postings statistics, etc), and cancel bots. What you have
written I am tempted to call a stalker bot.

If you just wanted to teach people not to multipost, carefully reread what
your bot spits out and try to wear the shoes of the offender. Do you
really think that 140+ (IIRC) lines with big black boxes (####) is
something anyone really is going to read without being offended?

What was wrong with:

Don't post the same message to several groups (multipost), see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html.


[1] people might miss your bot because of several reasons, one might be
because they kill filed your bot.
 
J

John Bokma

Sherm Pendley said:
Grow up. I intend to reply to each and every thread in which your
little whine-bot posts. Self-appointed "net nannies" are *far* more
annoying than any amount of cross- and or multi-posting.

Like I just wrote. This bot is just going to add its own noise, and is
going to attract noise by people who don't like it. Instead of 2 postings
in 2 groups we now get 2 postings + 2 "don't multipost" post, followed by
0 or more comments on the bot :-(
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top