quote Originally posted by Patrick: A bit off topic... but is everyone else also noticing that embedded images in forum posts are not showing up today?

They were broken. Then fixed now they seem broken again. I told you I was going to run Cliff out of disk space


Edit:

OMG i just realized Cliff finally enabled HTTPS!!! Woooo go Cliff. All images are http and browsers are not liking that is my guess.

[This message has been edited by skywurz (edited 04-01-2021).]

quote Originally posted by skywurz: I told you I was going to run Cliff out of disk space

Heh heh, I was thinking of what you said.

quote Originally posted by skywurz: OMG i just realized Cliff finally enabled HTTPS!!! Woooo go Cliff. All images are http and browsers are not liking that is my guess.

I don't understand the significance of HTTPS... but I notice the images all open just fine if "Open image in new tab" is selected.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-01-2021).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I don't understand the significance of HTTPS... but I notice the images all open just fine if "Open image in new tab" is selected.

Because the site is now HTTPS browsers will refuse to load insecure or HTTP content that is trying to be displayed on the site. This is done so you do not have privacy leaks in your secure section. This is called mixed content. https://developer.mozilla.o...ck-all-mixed-content

This above standard became outdated when browsers decided to just automatically block mixed content. I included it as reference.
https://love2dev.com/blog/chrome-mixed-content/

[This message has been edited by skywurz (edited 04-01-2021).]

Apologies to Curly for going off on a bit of a tangent here, but this is something that's now affecting us all and needs to be resolved.

quote Originally posted by skywurz: Because the site is now HTTPS browsers will refuse to load insecure or HTTP content that is trying to be displayed on the site.

This is a bit over my head... but is making the PFF image server somehow "secure" a solution to this issue?

Interesting that the image in This post still displays just fine, even though it's also hosted at a non-secured site.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-01-2021).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: [EDIT] Curiosity has gotten the best of me, and I've come across this diagram... supposedly of a pre-recall Fiero 2.8 PCV system. I have never ever (in 22 years of being here) seen a photo (rather than an illustration) of this type of setup where the firewall tube connects to the underside of the snorkel. Very strange. My '86 GT has the firewall tube (now capped on one end) connected to the filter canister. It was never at any time attached to a snorkel. It's nowhere near where the metal tube pictured above is located. Perhaps there were two different styles of pre-recall metal firewall tubes?

Um you adamantly told me I was wrong when I said that in my first post. Now you're saying "*perhaps* there were two different styles of pre-recall metal firewall tubes" even though it has been confirmed by the 22P?

Me: "The reason there's some confusion on the unplugged tube running along the firewall, is there were two different designs. The early design the metal tube plugged into the intake snorkel. The later design plugged into the side of the air filter canister.

During the recall, if memory serves, the early design snorkel was replaced with a new snorkel that had no inlet for that metal pipe. Thus the pipe was open on either end and didn't need to be capped.

You: I believe you're mistaken. "

The only thing I was unsure of was how the recall handled the two designs. I wasn't unsure about the fact there were two designs.

[This message has been edited by reinhart (edited 04-02-2021).]