Notices by Erin 💽✨ (erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net), page 7

@lanodan @domi @easrng prospero:// URLs from 1738 use ;parameters

also RFC2396 requires escaping it in path segments b/c its used for path params:

An example of a URI scheme using params is IMAP: imap://joe@example.com/INBOX/;uid=20/;section=1.2

@izaya I voted yes but honestly its more like “tights always look good. bare legs are high maintainance”

…also tights & leggings are enormously practical in winter

Its 2024 and somehow I am in an argument on an IETF mailing list about signing things & cross-protocol attacks.

@martyn this is a slight tangent, but: if you are at any risk of HIV transmission, PrEP taken daily is these days the single most effective method of prevention we have (even if you control for adherence; condoms sometimes get punctured or have manufacturing defects; if you forget to take PrEP occasionally, it’s still highly effective). It should be fairly easy to acquire at any sexual health clinic in Berlin.

Of course PrEP + Condom usage is more effective than either alone.

@atax1a @megmac tbh one thing i will say i like about postfix is that in most obvious places where you might want to delegate things to an external database it has a fairly simple protocol over a unix socket to do so

e.g. socketmap for recipient lookups

@atax1a @megmac i suspect that qmail could do similar things with simple shell scripts but a lot of my problems end up being socket-shaped instead of shell-script-shaped

Do you ever think about how “Tom’s Obvious, Minimal Language” is neither obvious nor minimal?

(Anyway not only is Toml a badly designed file format, but Tom‘s a dickhead; please pick something else)

@grawity now anyone who is showing something other than first6 + last4 is grossly violating PCI-DSS and needs to be shot.

DHL: Your package is in the packstation. Please collect it as soon as possible

Also DHL: You don’t currently have any packages waiting in any Packstations.

…could you folks make up your damn minds?

Relatedly: The %x conversion specifier in fscanf is defined in terms of strtoul. fscanf is only allowed one character of lookahead (see §7.23.6.2 footnote 332, “fscanf pushes back at most one input character onto the input stream. Therefore, some sequences that are acceptable to strtod, strtol, etc., are unacceptable to fscanf.”). sscanf and scanf are both defined in terms of fscanf.

Consider this sequence of code:

Is the result

1. r=1 (one conversion was possible), n=1 (one byte of input consumed), o=0 (we consumed the single zero digit)
2. r=0 (no conversion was possible) because 0x is a valid prefix of a conversion specifier but is not a valid input to strtoul (see previous post)

Now consider

We have a third potential option here: r=1, n=4, o=0xAA

however per the above footnote we must pick that our result is

• (1) in both cases
• (2) in both cases
• (2) in the first case, (3) in the second

In particular combo (1) and (3) is impossible because it would require us to peak ahead two characters (xZ/xA) in order to know which of the two cases we are in

I think (1) in both cases is the only reasonable result and the standard should probably call out explicitly that the 0b/0x prefixes are not permitted for the input to the %b/%x conversion specifiers respectively.

Previous discussion on the glibc issue tracker and with the committee seems to indicate that for this case (2)/(3) is the correct result. I find this outcome emotionally upsetting (but then, that describes lots of the specifics of scanf…) but it is at least internally consistent.

glibc for the first case will currently produce r=1, n=2, o=0 which is just nonsense, but at least its acknowledged as a (very old!) bug

Anyway I think this interpretation means a C standard library implementation needs different implementations of scanf and strtoul to be conformant to both C23 and C17 and earlier.

My displeasure is imeasurable and my day is ruined.

:drgn_dizzy:

So I have set of interesting C corner cases…

Consult 7.24.1.7 of WG14 N3220, concering “The strtol, strtoll, strtoul, and strtoull functions” and then look at the following:

Note: in versions of C prior to C23, the following are unambiguous (the language permitting the 0b prefix was added in C23). Depending upon interpretation, in C23 strtoul may reject inputs that were considered acceptible in in previous versions of the standard

If the local Bäckspace was a real thing I could go there and bake up a load of Franzbrötchen right about now…

Tired: Going to the hackspace to work on your programming project
Wired: Going to the hackspace to work on your electronics project
Un-Wired: Going to the Bäckspace to work on your baking project