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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 90F541F4B4 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 21:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232404AbhDHVEn (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:04:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54373 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232091AbhDHVEn (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:04:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23957B3C0A; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:04:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=QKiDzVjpv08vHlja6vvm8a45zws=; b=QE/HRO U9DMkWR4+ehXLJYjW06ouNJ1c05Ow5I+5V2OBJrHFWWZAMtW/V297oPJSttQXFSy HCtmUd7dPlFKjMPh7WwVtCoect9QgwJVXgT5bvwU9io2MY2BpaT9Mphyh6ztKhIE Zgk6ZpjhkOMM7y4O5xeG5KutTGklzxVJ+l/2I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ErbaJzh/yaPjoWoEQHSHOjLUzoO0XgOV Sq4hWHu7etPE2+wkZgflDLiWYpzdFnvWE2sepyYRKWXboPFR6eKJBDM+h5CaQPa9 KJ9nBC1SQdiVYiE3FEeQEnv0REnCf5UQQp2HneyD6YxKB6fpF1mzYTqSzRjLulub 9hUj9AApja0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADB6B3C09; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:04:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.243.138.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9640EB3C08; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:04:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Wong Cc: Georgios Kontaxis , Georgios Kontaxis via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?Q?=C3=86var_Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0_Bjarmason?= , "brian m. carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] gitweb: redacted e-mail addresses feature. References: <20210329014744.GA2813@dcvr> <8330ef0d7195de461f961d72f90998fa.squirrel@mail.kodaksys.org> <20210408171648.GA7133@dcvr> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 14:04:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20210408171648.GA7133@dcvr> (Eric Wong's message of "Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:16:48 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 02F605DC-98AE-11EB-A340-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Wong writes: > Georgios Kontaxis wrote: >> > Georgios Kontaxis via GitGitGadget wrote: >> >> Introduce an 'email-privacy' feature which redacts e-mail addresses >> >> from the generated HTML content >> > >> Eric Wong wrote: >> > A general reply to the topic: have you considered munging >> > addresses in a way that is still human readable, but obviously >> > obfuscated? >> ... >> > I also considered Unicode homographs which can look identical >> > to replacement characters, too; but rejected that idea since >> > it would cause grief for legitimate users who would not notice >> > the homograph when pasting into their mail client. > > 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. But other than that, does the patch look reasonable? Thanks.