28 ms·

[ERROR] The number of receivers has reached limits.

Imustaskforhelp 20d ago
Thanks, I will try to look more into this. I think it might be related to number of connections of piping servers but I am a little perplexed about it on how this is possible on an archived link. Can you please tell me more details so that I can hopefully try to fix it in the future. Did you try to open up the archive.org link of the website or the website itself (which is just a gh page: https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.io/2YdN9_3 https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.i...) I would like to know more so that I can hopefully fix that for the future, have a nice day :-D
deleted 20d ago
[deleted]
paul7986 20d ago
Been using the archive page firefox extension for a year or two. Yet now it looks like a total war against this resource was waged and it's no longer a good resource for archiving. Anyone know of any good reliable substitutes?
- GHanku 20d ago
  [dead]
- mitxela 19d ago
  archive.is is the best substitute. For some reason people here won't accept that. They think the internet is still a calm cooperative place like the olden days.
  - Tangurena2 19d ago
    My office's "net nanny" blocks archive.is as a "Russian site". However, archive.ph (use the same link across all the various sites) is not blocked (yet).
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 19d ago
  "Anyone know of any good reliable substitutes?" For me, archive.today, archive.is, archive.md, archive.ph, etc. are _not reliable_ for a number of reasons But some archive.today users who comment on HN cannot seem to accept that archive.today may not work for everybody else NB. Archive.today is not a "substitute for archive.org". Archive.today does not do www crawls As for archive.org, I know of a number of alternatives but each is generally less reliable and/or less comprehensive than archive.org Comman Crawl, i.e., downloads from data.commoncrawl.org, is reasonably reliable but not as comprehensive as archive.org. CC is not a reasonable substitute for archive.org's CDX service. The CC CDX endpoint, index.commoncrawl.org, historically has been easily overwhelmed and unreliable As for archive.today alternatives (no crawls, only user-submitted URLs), ghostarchive.org seems well-designed but not used much. No CAPTCHA, HTTPS and Javascript are optional and HAR files are provided. Whether it gets blocked like archive.today sites I do not know NB. Archive.today users may be using archive.today not as an archive but as a lazy man's solution for "paywalls" (Javascript annoyances) Where that's the case, comparsions to archive.org or other archives that are derived from crawls are inappropriate

Thanks, I will try to look more into this. I think it might be related to number of connections of piping servers but I am a little perplexed about it on how this is possible on an archived link. Can you please tell me more details so that I can hopefully try to fix it in the future. Did you try to open up the archive.org link of the website or the website itself (which is just a gh page: https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.io/2YdN9_3 https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.i...) I would like to know more so that I can hopefully fix that for the future, have a nice day :-D

deleted 20d ago

[deleted]

paul7986 20d ago

Been using the archive page firefox extension for a year or two. Yet now it looks like a total war against this resource was waged and it's no longer a good resource for archiving. Anyone know of any good reliable substitutes?

GHanku 20d ago
[dead]
mitxela 19d ago
archive.is is the best substitute. For some reason people here won't accept that. They think the internet is still a calm cooperative place like the olden days.
- Tangurena2 19d ago
  My office's "net nanny" blocks archive.is as a "Russian site". However, archive.ph (use the same link across all the various sites) is not blocked (yet).
1vuio0pswjnm7 19d ago
"Anyone know of any good reliable substitutes?" For me, archive.today, archive.is, archive.md, archive.ph, etc. are _not reliable_ for a number of reasons But some archive.today users who comment on HN cannot seem to accept that archive.today may not work for everybody else NB. Archive.today is not a "substitute for archive.org". Archive.today does not do www crawls As for archive.org, I know of a number of alternatives but each is generally less reliable and/or less comprehensive than archive.org Comman Crawl, i.e., downloads from data.commoncrawl.org, is reasonably reliable but not as comprehensive as archive.org. CC is not a reasonable substitute for archive.org's CDX service. The CC CDX endpoint, index.commoncrawl.org, historically has been easily overwhelmed and unreliable As for archive.today alternatives (no crawls, only user-submitted URLs), ghostarchive.org seems well-designed but not used much. No CAPTCHA, HTTPS and Javascript are optional and HAR files are provided. Whether it gets blocked like archive.today sites I do not know NB. Archive.today users may be using archive.today not as an archive but as a lazy man's solution for "paywalls" (Javascript annoyances) Where that's the case, comparsions to archive.org or other archives that are derived from crawls are inappropriate