Antoine Pitrou writes:
> I have to ask - is email obfuscation still useful these days?
It's hard to say. It's still a FAQ on Mailman lists, so people still
believe it's useful. I don't think there's hard evidence either way
(even guessing depends on the economics of the spamming business, and
On Sunday, May 6, 2012, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 06, 2012, at 09:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> >I have to ask - is email obfuscation still useful these days?
>
> I think it's more important that Python developers (especially those
> submitting or pronouncing on PEPs) can be contacted by oth
On May 06, 2012, at 09:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>I have to ask - is email obfuscation still useful these days?
I think it's more important that Python developers (especially those
submitting or pronouncing on PEPs) can be contacted by other Python
developers. I *personally* don't care about
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 16:45:32 +1000
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> For the moment, I suggest leaving your email address out of this
>> field. The email obfuscation is applied on a field-by-field basis, and
>> the formatter for reStructuredText PE
On Sun, 6 May 2012 16:45:32 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> For the moment, I suggest leaving your email address out of this
> field. The email obfuscation is applied on a field-by-field basis, and
> the formatter for reStructuredText PEPs actually lives in the docutils
> upstream rather than being
At Barry's suggestion (following my PEP 1 updates), I've also updated
the PEP 0 generation machinery to handle an explicit "BDFL-Delegate"
field.
You can see an example here with PEP 3151:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3151/
I also updated the 3 PEPs that are on my plate (405, 415 and 3144).
