Andy Hall - tribute comments

[Phil Addison]

Nice idea, will either you or andrew do it?

Phil

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

Google uk.d-i-y archive is at NOSPAM from address to email me

[Phil Addison]

Thanks Andrew, nice job.

Phil

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

Google uk.d-i-y archive is at NOSPAM from address to email me

[Phil Addison]

Another achievement for .andy!

Good idea, and on diyfaq.org.uk too

Phil

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

Google uk.d-i-y archive is at NOSPAM from address to email me

[Owain]

Owain

[John Stumbles]

...

Couple of proofing points: the screen version (at least) has ASCII smileys rendered as ghastly weeny graphics characters. Not at all in keeping with uk.d-i-y's 7-bit ethos!

And in the copy of my post you've out left a bit of text (about Andy's ding-dongs with Drivel) which makes even less sense of my own drivel :-/

[Andrew Gabriel]

If you can suggest a generally available font with smiles, I'll try that. I already changed them once (the original font didn't display them under Windows at all - the current one displays fine on my copy of Windows, and prints properly on professional printers). Leaving them as the original characters means nothing to a non-Usenet user, and without the sense of expression they imply, several of the sentenances have the wrong meaning.

Didn't seem appropriate in the circumstances?

[Tim Lamb]

Very sad to see the *post activity* record cease in August.

My wife is always planning what wording to put on my tombstone but I guess searchable records are what most of us will leave behind.

regards

[meow2222]

NT

[John Rumm]

OK, I have done alt.support.sleep-disorder and alt.support.diabetes.uk as they seemed like the next most heavily used groups.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Also an HTML version

[S Viemeister]

[Steve Firth]

your site security sucks.

[Andrew Gabriel]

I don't think I care, but in what way? Because you can browse the directory?

[John Rumm]

to, there are more people who would like to add their comments. I have asked them to post to the original Andy Hall thread here, but in case they don't, it might be worth mopping up some from the "Sad News" posts I placed on alt.support.diabetes.uk and a.s.sleep-disorder.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Well, this is the set I sent off, earlier today. That's not to say we can't carry on collecting more comments though.

[Steve Firth]

Yes. Generally not a good idea.

[Tim S]

Steve Firth coughed up some electrons that declared:

I disagree. Readable *scripts* would be more generally a bad idea, but I fail to see how browsing a web directory is bad in the *general case* (specific cases may warrent it).

Cheers

Tim

[Steve Firth]

You're allowed to be wrong.

It's not a good principle in general to allow people to see any documents other than the ones that you actually want them to see.

[John Stumbles]

Indeed. But if I'm aware that they can see the contents of a directory and allow it to be browsable is there any specific vulnerability connected with doing so? Usually if I don't want people to browse a dir I put an index.html file in there. I do detest wibbles that winge 'directory listing denied' at you if you chop off the last part of a path to try to get somewhere more general: if they want to guide where you go FFS put a page there that helps you do that.

[Tim S]

Steve Firth coughed up some electrons that declared:

Steve - your hatter called; says he's run out of material

Depends if you're in the habit of leaving sensitive junk lying around. I don't. I do my security at directory level (much easier to drop a .htaccess into a sensitive directory, or a directory whose main purpose is to have server-executable content.)

Cheers

Tim