On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Jason Wolfe <jawo...@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> 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!).
That's OK. Thanks. I can confirm that the link works now. -- 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
