From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16389 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2015 18:10:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 16375 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jan 2015 18:10:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-50.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (HELO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org) (204.13.248.72) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 18:10:21 +0000 Received: from pool-98-110-183-12.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([98.110.183.12] helo=cgf.cx) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YAMxu-000JGk-W3; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 18:10:19 +0000 Received: from ednor (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D413600B6; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:10:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:10:17 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/TCKA3YoW5OUZS21yhMWN+ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 18:10:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Gerald Pfeifer , overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Con Validas] URL block request from googlebot Message-ID: <20150111181017.GA7659@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Gerald Pfeifer , overseers@sourceware.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SW-Source: 2015-q1/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 09:05:06AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >On Saturday 2014-12-20 20:46, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> I haven't seen this kind of request before. Any opinions? > >I've looked at this thrice over the course of a two weeks, and >still am struggling. > >Since this is not about removing contents, just taking it off >the search engine map with robots.txt, it's less problematic >(and we would not "censor"). On the other hand, this posting >really seems harmless enough and I don't understand. On the >third hand, such an approach sipmly does not scale. > >So, I'd not to it personally, though I would not complain bitterly >if someone else did. FYI, Frank has already turned down the request but the person is now asking for an explanation. I am against doing it because: 1) I think the request is stupid and I have a hard time making myself do things that I think are stupid when I'm not being paid to do so. 2) The slippery slope - if we do this for him then we have no reason not to do it for everyone. And, if we do this one thing then, IMO, it opens up the door for more arguing about modifying mailing list posts. They aren't the same thing but I wouldn't want to have to spend any time at all arguing that point. cgf