On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:50:31PM +0000, Robin Houston wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:38:41PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Does anybody know if LWP::Simple allow for <un>@<pw>:<url> convention?
>
> Yes it does.
>
> Wouldn't it have been quicker to try it than to write that
> message? ;-)
Well, yes, normally. I was already reasonably sure that LWP::Simple did
support that notation, but I was seeing 401's in return, which was making
wonder if it wasn't supported. Convoluted Explanation? Yes. Frustrating?
Definitly. Now I have to go away and figure out where it is having a
problem. I know that the UN/PW combination is correct, but alas no joy.
Ah well.
--james.
PGP signature
