> Posting a reply to someone that consists solely of a link that, when > accessed by that someone, throws up an access denied message in their > face, is an equivalent act to sending them an encrypted reply for > which they don't have the key, or handing them a locked briefcase for > which they don't know the combination. So, kind of silly, and > ineffective at actually communicating with them since they can't read > your reply. > > Hence my assumption that a mistake of some sort had been made. It > seems unlikely that someone would intentionally send me a reply I > can't actually read, so I figured they did not intend that effect, but > technical problems of some kind occurred or they simply misspelled the > URL. > > Now I'm simply confused. What, exactly, was intended? And if there's > nothing actually private-to-me about the attempted communication and > someone here is prviy to its contents, perhaps they could simply > repost those contents here?
I apologize for my terseness; thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I was in a rush, and assumed the link was world- viewable; it certainly didn't look protected, and I knew that issues for Clojure (but I guess not C-C) were publicly browsable without an account from prior experience. Looks like Stuart has fixed this wart (thanks!). -Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
