From Gianni Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1
day.
/__DATE__MMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//
It's ugly. Really really ugly.
I don't think it's ugly or I wouldn't have suggested it. However
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:28:51PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
From Gianni Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1
day.
/__DATE__MMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//
It's ugly. Really
On Monday 02 September 2002 05:10, you wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
So should I fix the filter not to bark on question marks ?
I think so.
I disagree.
Every 1337 d00d will set the htl of the active links to the content they want
to propagate
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:53:39AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Monday 02 September 2002 05:10, you wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
So should I fix the filter not to bark on question marks ?
I think so.
I disagree.
Every 1337 d00d
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:28:32PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
The fact remains that any link from outside freenet can already do this.
If it is really a problem then we ought to get rid of the htl argument in
the URL altogether, and make it configuration setting.
Another solution would be
On Monday 02 September 2002 15:10, you wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:28:32PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
The fact remains that any link from outside freenet can already do this.
If it is really a problem then we ought to get rid of the htl argument in
the URL altogether, and make it
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:00:59PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Monday 02 September 2002 15:10, you wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:28:32PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
The fact remains that any link from outside freenet can already do this.
If it is really a problem then we
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:54:02AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 09:02:36PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 20:07, you wrote:
It's ugly. Really really ugly.
I don't think it's ugly or I wouldn't have suggested it. However if you are
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hi. Newly implemented fproxy functionality allows you
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew
Looking at Parser.flex...
/* Non whitespace and not close of tag (right angle bracket). I.e.
* chars that
* would not cause an unquoted attribute to end */
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
This I don't understand... ? or : do not terminate the attribute
(meaning
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Looking at Parser.flex...
/* Non whitespace and not close of tag (right angle bracket). I.e.
* chars that
* would not cause an unquoted attribute to end */
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
At 07:41 PM 08/31/2002 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
big snippage
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? @ is reserved in keys,
isn't it?
I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security,
because
they
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:24:07PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? is reserved in keys,
isn't it?
This looks confusing to me. I
On Saturday 31 August 2002 20:07, you wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? @ is reserved in keys,
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? is reserved in keys,
isn't it?
This looks confusing to me. I
17 matches
Mail list logo
