From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BB31F934 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 21:19:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232542AbhDHVTR (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:19:17 -0400 Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:53784 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232488AbhDHVTQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:19:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146721F4B4; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 21:19:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 21:19:04 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Georgios Kontaxis , Georgios Kontaxis via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , "brian m. carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] gitweb: redacted e-mail addresses feature. Message-ID: <20210408211904.GA16486@dcvr> References: <20210329014744.GA2813@dcvr> <8330ef0d7195de461f961d72f90998fa.squirrel@mail.kodaksys.org> <20210408171648.GA7133@dcvr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Wong writes: > > As a data point, none of the homograph@ candidates I posted here > > on Mar 29 have attracted any attempts on my mail server. > > That is an interesting observation. All homograph@ non-addresses, > if a human corrected the funnies in their spelling, would have hit > whoever handles @80x24.org mailboxes. > > I take it to mean that as a future direction, replacing > with the obfuscated-but-readable-by-humans homographs is a likely > improvement that would help human users while still inconveniencing > the crawlers. It may however need some provision to prevent casual > end-users from cutting-and-pasting these homographs, as you said in > your original mention of the homograph approach. Yes, exactly. > But other than that, does the patch look reasonable? I only took a cursory glance at it, but v6 seemed fine.