Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Eric Wong <email@example.com> 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.