On Thu, Apr 08 2021, Eric Wong wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
