Peter F.

Members
  • Content count

    1,357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peter F.

  • Rank
    Community Regular

IPS Marketplace

  • Resources Contributor
    Total file submissions: 1

Recent Profile Visitors

33,507 profile views
  1. Given that IPS has a large base of customers who run a variety of websites (many of whom may not be the most security savvy) would IPS consider sending out a notice to it's customers about heartbleed? Especially given that it has now been shown by researchers that it is possible to get the raw private ssl key using heartbleed. At the very least to suggest that people using SSL certs revoke and reissue. http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/399417-important-notice-regarding-openssl-101-to-openssl-101f/page-2#entry2475902
  2. I added in a new variable to that template (and some others) to enable FURLs. You should be able to get the seoname from the awards cache.
  3. Will IPS Connect be encoded? or viewable source?
  4. Just a quick suggestion on a way to improve the convertibility of bbcode to HTML and back: Add a class attribute to the HTML that a bbcode translates to. Specify it as "bbcode<insertname>tag" and then alter the parser so that it looks for tags with this attribute and parses them. Similarly you could wrap the HTML tags that originate from bbcode in HTML comments. Hell you could even make the comment identifiers unique which would aid parsing things like multi-level quotes. Then you would have the bbcode parser search for these specific comments and certain tags following them before converting the HTML into bbcode and vice versa.
  5. That is understandable. I just thought I would suggest a potential alternative but given how invested you are I can understand not changing solutions. However getting campaign integration with IP.Board is something that could be done relatively quickly with a custom hook/set of hooks or an app. Both have their pros and cons in this case. I personally think a hook may be more appropriate. There is a list of developers available, experienced with IP.Board and hook/app development, who could potentially take on such a project located here that you may wish to contact about this sort of integration.
  6. In terms of sending transactional emails (as in emails from the forum itself/Bulk Mail feature) Mandrill is the solution for Mailchimp (as Mailchimp does not appear to offer transactional emails outside of Mandrill). I'm presuming when you are talking about Mailchimp integration you are talking about managing and setting up campaigns from within IP.Board itself as opposed to individual emails/sets of emails using the bulk email feature. It should be possible to code up a solution given their API. There are alternatives to mailchimp that offer both transactional and campaign emails as part of one package, MailJet being the one I use. I haven't integrated the campaigns side of things into IP.Board myself but the transactional emails can use the SMTP settings that are already present in IP.Board without any need for additional coding on that side of things. They also have an API similar to Mailchimp for managing campaigns. The only reason I mention this is the added expense of two bills from Mailchimp (one for Mailchimp proper and one for Mandrill) compared to one from Mailjet that covers the same functionality.
  7. There is another solution as well that may do what you are looking for: for both systems you can customise the awards icons/images.
  8. Not to mention the need to give modders a decent amount of heads up as to which version it is coming in (assuming they don't want to break any application that uses prototype in conjuction with the prototype libraries IP.Board ships with)
  9. Yes it does.
  10. To be perfectly honest you don't need to force the author_id to be part of the app_key, all that is required is that authors keep their app keys unique. My own opinion is that the downloads install here should have a custom field that allows authors (or marketplace moderators) to specify what their app/hook key is for a particular resource. Then when another resource is submitted to the marketplace that has the same key the moderators can see that it has a non-unique key and tell the author to change their key for that resource. Right now it's the authors responsibility to ensure that their app key is unique, it should be a marketplace requirement that the app key be unique.
  11. That is exactly the issue I was talking about. When Alec created (inv) Awards he used the same app key that was being used in my app. It is something that I had notified Alec about when he first released (inv) Awards but he chose not to address the issue then.
  12. There are. The main one being that they both use the same app key (as in they both use the awards key to access the app). This makes it very very difficult to figure out which is installed and thus build consistent converters between the two, even worse it can cause issues if one apps files are just transposed over the other (as in someone who has one app installs uploads the files of the other over the first). In that particular instance IP.Board is unable to detect which is installed and which is not. Thus you can end up with tables not being installed etc. However the way in which they assign permissions to give/take awards do not conflict (which is what those columns in (inv) awards were for, whereas my app uses the built in permissions system).
  13. I'd like to note that the other awards mods does not use the above columns and never has. (inv) Awards does use those columns, so what I would surmise is that Deano© used (inv) Awards, then switched to my app, and now has switched back to JLogica's version of (inv) Awards.
  14. It's not a Windows or Mac feature but something that is supported by your browser. The issue is that on 3.2 the way in which the signin form is loaded causes certain browsers not to recognise it as a legitimate password form (because it was created with AJAX) and thus do not autofill the username/password combo you use for that site. The hooks mentioned above were created to fix the problem.
  15. My server is configured to support tls however what I am talking about is adding an option (similar to the option available in the POP settings of the incoming email) to force tls instead of typing in the tls:// protocol handler. Before your post I wasn't aware if IP.Board even allowed you to specify the tls protocol that way (as most email clients have an option for this).