On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, J. op den Brouw wrote:
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:45:36 +0100 (MET)
> From: "J. op den Brouw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [htdig3-dev] Patch Site Unreachable
>
>
>
> When doing an mirror, I get:
>
> Failure on 'RETR 3.1.5/Server.cc.0' command
> Failed to get 3.1.5/Server.cc.0: 550 3.1.5/Server.cc.0: Permission denied.
> Failed to get file 550 3.1.5/Server.cc.0: Permission denied
I UUdecoded the message and placed it on the patch site, but when I looked
at the patch I realized that it may be unethical to make it public.
Perhaps that was the reason why it was UUencoded (15 lines) to begin with.
So, I made it unreadable because I am ambivalent about it. What do you
folks think?
Here is the patch:
_________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:15:43 -0500
From: gil cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [htdig] Going for the big dig
not like it wouldn't be so hard.
hrmm. here's a patch.
apply with patch < Server.cc.0 in the htdig-3.1.5/htdig directory.
--- Server.cc Mon Dec 18 23:14:19 2000
+++ Server.bak Mon Dec 18 23:14:57 2000
@@ -70,12 +70,6 @@
switch (status)
{
case Document::Document_ok:
- //
- // Found a robots.txt file. Go parse it.
- //
- robotstxt(doc);
- break;
-
case Document::Document_not_found:
case Document::Document_not_html:
case Document::Document_redirect:
_________________________________________________________
Regards,
Joe
--
_/ _/_/_/ _/ ____________ __o
_/ _/ _/ _/ ______________ _-\<,_
_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ ......(_)/ (_)
_/_/ oe _/ _/. _/_/ ah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You will receive a message to confirm this.
