stuart yeates wrote:
GPO knows that many institutions have automated URL checkers
that run against the PURL server. Please be aware that the
PURL restoration process is severely slowed by checkers repeatedly
hitting the PURL server.
Presumably if there are any parties running automated
And how does that absolve such sites from being named and shamed or
permanently filtered? If Millenium is acting like a robot in its
monthly maintenance processes, then it should be checking robots.txt.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Chris Kingck...@asl.edu wrote:
stuart yeates wrote:
GPO
On 09/02/2009 09:55 AM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
David Fiander
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:32 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] FW: PURL Server Update 2
If Millenium is acting like a robot
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Thomas Dowling
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:25 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] FW: PURL Server Update 2
The III crawler has been a pain for years and Innovative has shown no
interest
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] FW: PURL Server Update 2
The III crawler has been a pain for years and Innovative has shown no
interest
in cleaning it up. It not only ignores robots.txt, but it hits target
servers
just as fast and hard as it can. If you have a lot
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Bill Dueber b...@dueber.com wrote:
2. Should III (and others), when acting as a user agent, be such a dick?
In Innovative's defense, the URL verifier is a very limited and configurable
'robot'.
- It only verifies the HTTP header response codes for the URLs
Server Update 2
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf
Of
Thomas Dowling
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:25 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] FW: PURL Server Update 2
The III crawler has been a pain for years and Innovative
FYI...
Patricia A. Duplantis
Librarian (Automation)
Library Technical Services Support Section,
Library Technical Information Services
U.S. Government Printing Office
732 North Capitol Street NW
Mail Stop: IDBS
Washington, DC 20401
Phone: 202-512-2010 ext. 33268
Fax: 202-512-1432
Duplantis, Patricia A. wrote:
On- and off-site redundant back-up of all critical hardware and systems is and will continue to be performed by GPO.
I don't really understand how this is consistent with:
Though the hardware configuration was restored, GPO has worked continuously, including
GPO knows that many institutions have automated URL checkers
that run against the PURL server. Please be aware that the
PURL restoration process is severely slowed by checkers
repeatedly hitting the PURL server.
Presumably if there are any parties running automated tools which
neglect to
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Duplantis, Patricia A. wrote:
On- and off-site redundant back-up of all critical hardware and
systems is and will continue to be performed by GPO.
I don't really understand how this is consistent with:
Though the hardware configuration was restored, GPO has worked
4) Server compromised. Worst case scenario. They need to preserve all
the drives so they can analyze them and turn over information to
police.
This is where written policies and reality often diverge. Getting LE
involved is tantamount to throwing away production equipment making a
bad
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Houghton,Andrewhough...@oclc.org wrote:
...
4) Server compromised. Worst case scenario. They need to preserve all
the drives so they can analyze them and turn over information to
police. They are not going to trust the backup/image since they don't
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Edward M. Corradoecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote:
Thus I have to believe them that they did not have a compromised
server and instead they had a hardware failure. I have no idea why
they couldn't just restore from backup which would at least gotten
them back to
On Sep 1, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Edward M.
Corradoecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote:
Thus I have to believe them that they did not have a compromised
server and instead they had a hardware failure. I have no idea why
they couldn't
15 matches
Mail list logo
