Show 26 quoted lines
> On Thu, Apr 08 2021, Eric Wong wrote:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> 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 <redacted>
>>> 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.
>
> Ditto, I left a small nit comment about a needless /i in a regex, but I
> don't think that needs a re-roll.
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>