Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Thanks, both. Will tweak the /i out, and re-queue with acked-by from you two.
