To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 259
258  |  260
Subject: 
Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Date: 
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:51:05 GMT
Viewed: 
4847 times
  
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek writes:
One fix, of course, is to remove this mechanism completely. That may be
best, I can't say what your intent in having it was in the first place.

I think you're right -- removing it may be best, and I wouldn't miss it if it
were gone.  It doesn't get used often, and it would do just as well to give an
email link there.  As to its purpose/intention, it just happened to be an easy
thing to do, given some other stuff at a lower level that was there (CLSotW
input uses the same input mechanism).  This was feeping creaturitis, I think,
falling into the category of "just because was extremely easy to implement
doesn't mean that was necessarily a wise idea."  I think at the time I also
was wanting to avoid giving an e-mail link for spam harvesting reasons, but
spammers know how to send mail to foo@yourdomain.com anyway, so that's kinda
a moot issue.

Thanks for the suggestion -- I changed the page to an e-mail link -- no more
form.

--Todd



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) I think it's a pretty strong implication that when you say "privately" that the contents won't normally be revealed... (...) I'm not sure I agree, actually... Again, it's a pretty strong implication. I think (despite some comments by others (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)

17 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR