Follow-up Comment #12, sr #110917 (group administration): [comment #11 comment #11:] > [comment #9 comment #9:] >> I haven't had a chance to look into restricting those links, > > Thanks, Corwin. To clarify, I don't think any links need to be restricted, > but corrected.
That was badly applied spellcheck, I'm afraid. The term I intended to use was
"resurrected", not restricted.
[comment #11 comment #11:]
> A bunch of the archive pages point to a long-defunct ftp:// URL, but there
> _is_ a valid https:// URL containing the correct mbox file for each period.
Thanks.
[comment #11 comment #11:]
>
> Thanks, Corwin. To clarify, I don't think any links need to be restricted,
> but corrected. A bunch of the archive pages point to a long-defunct ftp://
> URL, but there _is_ a valid https:// URL containing the correct mbox file for
> each period.
Right. Thank you, my mistake. In fact lists is where I more recently
requested (and received) access (to look into this), but where I have added a
bunch of fail2ban rules "recently" (instead of working on this). I'm starting
to know my way around there.
Anyway, that means I'm not blocked by access and also it's unlikely a local
sandbox is really very important to (e.g.) avoiding breaking things as I try
stuff. The mail tools aren't too monolithic, the archive files are just
files. I am hopeful that some type of link-transformation inline could make
these links work, at least for the case where we are accessing them online (vs
downloading them, ourselves).
summary
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110917>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
