Am 03/09/2014 07:33 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Marcus (OOo)<>  wrote:

Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Rob Weir wrote:

  Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting thread email?

Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do not care to be
careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately.

We can be successful only if we manage to block their downloads. They
link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just
thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge side) to deny
all download requests that do not come from the or the domains, then the project would effectively be in
control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. There are MANY sites the re-route to
SourceForge for our downloads, and this is perfectly fine. The concern is
for the  inadvertent download of not yet released Beta which is available
from the following URL space which is not even SourceForge:

OK, for the Beta release in special this is true. It's not yet available on Sourceforge - at least I cannot see it.

In general, they link to our binaries at Sourceforge.

Correct? So, I think the restriction would need to be from,
not SourceForge.

For the Beta release this is true.

However, I don't know how long this makes sense.


For me this sounds like a great idea.

Maybe we should start with denying all download requests that some from
these bad websites.

Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort for you?

  Sure, sites could still copy all binaries being voted upon and offer
them locally, but this would require a more significant effort. on their

And more HDD space and more own bandwith - which is also not what they


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to