The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses since
many are probably now out of date, and they poses a slight spam risk
for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code - which helps reduce
the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings on the matter?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses since
many are probably now out of date, and they poses a slight spam risk
for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code - which helps reduce
the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings on the matter?

I can't see that you're gaining anything by doing that.
You need to retain details of the copyright ownerships
in any case.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Rumm writes:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses since
many are probably now out of date, and they poses a slight spam risk
for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code - which helps reduce
the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings on the matter?

I can't see that you're gaining anything by doing that.
You need to retain details of the copyright ownerships
in any case.

Who has copyright on Andy Hall's contribution ?

Is it worth clarifying the position with his family ?

--
geoff

John Rumm wrote:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses
for many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email
addresses since many are probably now out of date, and they poses a
slight spam risk for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code -
which helps reduce the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings
on the matter?

Having written the pressure washer FAQ, I get e-mails from people all over
the world asking for information. I find this interesting and always try to
help. I'd like that to continue.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses
for many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email
addresses since many are probably now out of date, and they poses a
slight spam risk for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code -
which helps reduce the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings
on the matter?

Having written the pressure washer FAQ, I get e-mails from people all over
the world asking for information. I find this interesting and always try to
help. I'd like that to continue.

Fair point...

perhaps just expunging the addresses that we know to be defunct is a
better way to go?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
John Rumm wrote:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses
for many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email
addresses since many are probably now out of date, and they poses a
slight spam risk for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code -
which helps reduce the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings
on the matter?

Having written the pressure washer FAQ, I get e-mails from people all over
the world asking for information. I find this interesting and always try to
help. I'd like that to continue.


Same here with actuators, even if its so long ago I don't remember



--
geoff

John Rumm wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses
for many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email
addresses since many are probably now out of date, and they poses a
slight spam risk for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code -
which helps reduce the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings
on the matter?

Having written the pressure washer FAQ, I get e-mails from people all
over the world asking for information. I find this interesting and
always try to help. I'd like that to continue.

Fair point...

perhaps just expunging the addresses that we know to be defunct is a
better way to go?


That sounds sensible.

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:40 +0100, in uk.d-i-y geoff
wrote:

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Rumm writes:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses since
many are probably now out of date, and they poses a slight spam risk
for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code - which helps reduce
the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings on the matter?

I can't see that you're gaining anything by doing that.
You need to retain details of the copyright ownerships
in any case.

Who has copyright on Andy Hall's contribution ?

Copyright ceeds to the estate of the deceased.

Is it worth clarifying the position with his family ?

No dont bother them

Phil

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:40 +0100, geoff wrote:

Who has copyright on Andy Hall's contribution ?

His estate.

Is it worth clarifying the position with his family ?

Can't see why, by the willful act of publishing the work in a public place
presumably without any specific note from Andy about copyright the work is
in the public domain.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

--
Cheers
Dave.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Rumm
saying something like:

The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses

Yes, they'd be much happier running free across the internet plains.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Rumm
saying something like:

The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses

Yes, they'd be much happier running free across the internet plains.

What's your name, Mary Fisher? (the last person to complain about that
particular typo!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses
for many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email
addresses since many are probably now out of date, and they poses a
slight spam risk for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code -
which helps reduce the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings
on the matter?

Having written the pressure washer FAQ, I get e-mails from people all
over the world asking for information. I find this interesting and
always try to help. I'd like that to continue.

Fair point...

perhaps just expunging the addresses that we know to be defunct is a
better way to go?


That sounds sensible.

I like that idea.

Adam

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:40 +0100, geoff wrote:

Is it worth clarifying the position with his family ?

Can't see why, by the willful act of publishing the work in a public place
presumably without any specific note from Andy about copyright the work is
in the public domain.

Not at all. Copyright exists when you create something, and plastering
it or not with legalese doesn't change that. You have to explicitly say
so in order to put things in the public domain.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

Heartily agree with this though. Nobody's going to want to be quizzed by
some copyright wonk, under the circumstances.

Pete

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:40 +0100, in uk.d-i-y geoff
wrote:

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Rumm writes:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses since
many are probably now out of date, and they poses a slight spam risk
for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code - which helps reduce
the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings on the matter?

I can't see that you're gaining anything by doing that.
You need to retain details of the copyright ownerships
in any case.

Who has copyright on Andy Hall's contribution ?

Amazingly, none of Andy's numerous contributions are actually in the
FAQ!!!

How about gathering them up into an "Andy Hall of Fame" section in the
Wiki? It would be a real shame if one day Google changed direction and
they got lost. Its happened before... remember deja-vu, altavista.

Anyone up for starting it off with a list of good ones, with pointers
into the Google archive?

Phil

Phil Addison wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:40 +0100, in uk.d-i-y geoff
wrote:

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Rumm writes:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses since
many are probably now out of date, and they poses a slight spam risk
for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code - which helps reduce
the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings on the matter?
I can't see that you're gaining anything by doing that.
You need to retain details of the copyright ownerships
in any case.

Who has copyright on Andy Hall's contribution ?

Amazingly, none of Andy's numerous contributions are actually in the
FAQ!!!

How about gathering them up into an "Andy Hall of Fame" section in the
Wiki? It would be a real shame if one day Google changed direction and
they got lost. Its happened before... remember deja-vu, altavista.

Anyone up for starting it off with a list of good ones, with pointers
into the Google archive?

Splendid idea Phil.

I recall some very detailed and useful postings on things like auxiliary
heating circuits for workshops, flushing central heating systems, and a
few others.

If someone wants to collect them together, I would be happy to format
them for the FAQ (probably not as well suited to the wiki, since there
is little justification for "fiddling" with them later...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/