Re: [boost] Trouble accessing www.boost.org

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-10 23:02:49

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Trouble accessing www.boost.org

> I can get to boost with http://ns.portraitsfromphotos.net/
>
> Call me paranoid (and ignorant) but I'm wondering if there may be a virus
> on the loose that's attacking DNS's.

I don't know, but for the past 2 days I've been getting a message like this
one every time I post to boost:
-----------

User's "psynapse" mailbox is full

All messages will be returned until some space is freed up.
---------------------------------------

From sentto-1234907-729-960694313-psynapse=sub-mail.com_at_[hidden]
Sun Jun 11 05:43:27 2000
Return-Path:
<sentto-1234907-729-960694313-psynapse=sub-mail.com_at_[hidden]>
Received: from hk.egroups.com (hk.egroups.com [208.50.144.91])
by server2.spacegalaxy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA06102
for <psynapse_at_[hidden]>; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 05:43:26 -0500
X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-1234907-729-960694313-psynapse=sub-mail.com_at_[hidden]
Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jun 2000
03:31:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 13038 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2000 03:31:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jun 2000
03:31:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO chmls06.mediaone.net) (24.147.1.144) by mta2
with SMTP; 11 Jun 2000 03:31:51 -0000
Received: from dabrahams2 (h00a04b09a254.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.234.203])
by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA21109 for
<boost_at_[hidden]>; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <017601bfd355$71d48fe0$056ca8c0_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006091311040.3986-100000_at_localhost.localdomain>
<39421952.8140E972_at_[hidden]>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list boost_at_[hidden]; contact boost-owner_at_[hidden]
Delivered-To: mailing list boost_at_[hidden]
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:30:52 -0400
Reply-To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Safety over efficiency guideline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The counterargument to this is that programmers should never feel a nagging
doubt about adding an assertion, for fear that it will slow down the
shipping code.

-Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Branko Èibej" <branko.cibej_at_[hidden]>

And a good example of how things _shouldn't_ be done is the Microsoft
practice of not providing support for assert() in the optimized version
of their runtime library. Which means I can't use the faster library
and still keep assert()s in my code, although in my opinion an abort()
is always better than a segfault (or worse). Which in turn means that I
have to implement my own assertion macro; then what's the point of having
a standard interface?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free @Backup service!  Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online.  Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4935/3/_/9351/_/960694288/
------------------------------------------------------------------------