General Discussions about LUGNET : 3768

Administrative / General / 3768

3767 | 3769

Subject:	Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
Newsgroups:	lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 1999 02:12:17 GMT
Reply-To:	MATTDM@spamlessMATTDM.ORG
Viewed:	6860 times

Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote: > pages, then if you go to this index page, it's usually pretty easy from the > link colorings to see which images were intended to be viewed and which > were hidden through obscurity (no visible links). Granted, anyone who makes > this kind of information browseable is either doing it on purpose or is a > complete webidiot, but it's still something that I'd (personally) hafta > call a form of snooping. YMMV. :-) You mean you go back and see what you should have felt guilty about, in retrospect? I think that's going a bit overboard! -- Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
(...) Heh heh. No no, I mean when you find some directory with 755 permissions (instead of 711 permissions) and it's got no index.html file, but it's got a home.html file linked to from elsewhere, and home.html contains links to 5 images in its (...) (27 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
(...) I didn't mean it quite that literally. Correcting an obvious typo or fixing broken \'s to /'s is something I think anyone could do without feeling guilt! :) I meant things like trying to guess names of files from partial information, or if (...) (27 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

93 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact