I just installed cmucl on RH 6.0 So I am reading tutorials. One such tutorial says go no farther until you understand how to exit cmucl.
I tried typing, quit, exit and bye at both the command line and in emacs I think called cmulisp.
I can exit the command line with Ctrl-z or emacs with Ctrl-x then -c. But this does seem clean. I have not found the answer on Google/deja or altavista nor is it mentioned early in the manuals. I only saw six questions in the cmucl faq.
> I just installed cmucl on RH 6.0 > So I am reading tutorials. One such > tutorial says go no farther until you > understand how to exit cmucl.
> I tried typing, quit, exit and bye at > both the command line and in emacs > I think called cmulisp.
You call the function named quit at the cmucl toplevel: [noc@malatesta noc]$ lisp CMU Common Lisp release x86-linux 2.4.22 3 October 2000 build 1153, running on malatesta Send bug reports and questions to your local CMU CL maintainer, or to pvane...@debian.org or to cmucl-h...@cons.org. (prefered)
type (help) for help, (quit) to exit, and (demo) to see the demos
Loaded subsystems: Python 1.0, target Intel x86 CLOS based on PCL version: September 16 92 PCL (f) CLX X Library MIT R5.02 Defsystem Mar 13 1995 * (quit) [noc@malatesta noc]$
This newsgroup is a good place for general lisp questions. For questions about cmucl itself, the cmucl users list is probably better: <cmucl-h...@cons.org>
"Stephen Harris" <stephen.p.har...@worldnet.att.net> writes: > I just installed cmucl on RH 6.0 > So I am reading tutorials. One such > tutorial says go no farther until you > understand how to exit cmucl.
It sounds like it would be a more useful tutorial if it also told you _how_ to exit cmucl
t...@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>This newsgroup is a good place for general lisp questions. For >questions about cmucl itself, the cmucl users list is probably better: >cmucl-help ... cons.org
Please do not post direct addresses of CMUCL mailing lists. We will be spammed to death!
I would highly appreciate it if you would cancel your article and write a new one without the address.
craca...@counter.bik-gmbh.de (Martin Cracauer) writes: > t...@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> >This newsgroup is a good place for general lisp questions. For > >questions about cmucl itself, the cmucl users list is probably better: > >cmucl-help ... cons.org
> Please do not post direct addresses of CMUCL mailing lists. We will > be spammed to death!
> I would highly appreciate it if you would cancel your article and > write a new one without the address.
Terribly sorry, I canceled it. I don't want that spam either :). I'm curious, though, is that actually a problem? After a year's experimenting, I got no spam from comp.* or gnu.* newsgroups (and I completely abandoned the addresses I used for rec.* and alt.*). Of course, with a list address, I'm all in favor of being more paranoid (despite my conflicting instinct to be precise when citing references).
Thomas F. Burdick <t...@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: +--------------- | craca...@counter.bik-gmbh.de (Martin Cracauer) writes: | > Please do not post direct addresses of CMUCL mailing lists. | > We will be spammed to death! | | Terribly sorry, I canceled it. I don't want that spam either :). | I'm curious, though, is that actually a problem? After a year's | experimenting, I got no spam from comp.* or gnu.* newsgroups ... +---------------
You've just been lucky, I guess. I've confirmed to my (dis)satisfaction that spammers *do* mine netnews for addresses -- not only headers but also complete article bodies as well. (*sigh*)
rpw3@rigdenengrsgicom (Rob Warnock) writes: >Thomas F. Burdick <tfb@famineOCFBerkeleyEDU> wrote: >| Terribly sorry, I canceled it. I don't want that spam either :). >| I'm curious, though, is that actually a problem? After a year's >| experimenting, I got no spam from comp.* or gnu.* newsgroups ... >+--------------- >You've just been lucky, I guess. I've confirmed to my (dis)satisfaction >that spammers *do* mine netnews for addresses -- not only headers but >also complete article bodies as well. (*sigh*)
In my experience, there can be a lag of sometimes several years between the news posting and the arrival of spam. I have used three different accounts to post from during the 90's, and the use has not been interleaved, but divided into three segments of 3-4 years. Currently, I'm receiving most spam to the "middle" adress, a few years ago it was mostly to the first adress. The amount of spam to my current address is very limited, at least comparing to the other two.
> >Thomas F. Burdick <tfb@famineOCFBerkeleyEDU> wrote:
> >| Terribly sorry, I canceled it. I don't want that spam either :). > >| I'm curious, though, is that actually a problem? After a year's > >| experimenting, I got no spam from comp.* or gnu.* newsgroups ... > >+---------------
> >You've just been lucky, I guess. I've confirmed to my (dis)satisfaction > >that spammers *do* mine netnews for addresses -- not only headers but > >also complete article bodies as well. (*sigh*)
> In my experience, there can be a lag of sometimes several years between > the news posting and the arrival of spam. I have used three different > accounts to post from during the 90's, and the use has not been interleaved, > but divided into three segments of 3-4 years. Currently, I'm receiving > most spam to the "middle" adress, a few years ago it was mostly to > the first adress. The amount of spam to my current address is very limited, > at least comparing to the other two.
Perhaps it's some application of some Nth Law of Scamming, which I imaging is "never do more work than you have to". Originally, that probably meant trolling the newsgroups rather than ASKING people for addresses. Once they had the addresses, maybe that meant never updating the database and just continuing to assume all the adresses originally constructed from newsgroups were valid forever. ;-)
> In my experience, there can be a lag of sometimes several years between > the news posting and the arrival of spam.
No kidding. My mail software has the pleasure of rejecting spam attempted delivered to message IDs from 1994. I wonder who bought these "addresses" and if they are smart enough to figure out that they were ripped off. Probably not, since they bought address lists in the first place. Ironically, it has mostly been address lists that have been "marketed" to ancient messages IDs. (I just _had_ to allow delivery (while it was still rejected as far as the sender was concerned) and have a look at what the pathetic losers tried to pander. :)
