On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:44 AM, James A. Kuzdrall wrote:
> Question: How did Google get the link? gnhlug is a public bulletin board,
> but doesn't Google promise not to search email content?
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.gnhlug/
http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discus
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Tom Buskey wrote:
> robots.txt is just like the yellow line on the highway. Having everyone
> honor it is what keeps you from having a 50 mph head on collision but the
> line won't do anything to prevent it.
Well put. It's an element of the cooperative nature of
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/more_on_feudal.html
FWIW before Google when there were lots of search engines, one company
bragged that you could toggle to ignore robots.txt. It was considered
highly unethical and I think the company suffered.
robots.txt is just like the yellow l
>
> What is your take on the second and third questions? Again, this is
> just for amusing speculation on how the google bot programmers set up
> their system.
>
Oops. Sorry for ignoring those in my haste to rant about my lawn.
Question: Having gotten the link, what motivated them to fol
> I don't think we can reach that conclusion. Jim posted a message
> to the public GNHLUG mailing list that included a web address.
Hey, right! now that you mention it (duh) isn't that how WWW
indexing is *designed* to work in the first place? ;->
Forgot about the archived GNHLUG postings, a
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Michael ODonnell <
michael.odonn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ... just that it was surprising (disappointing?)
> to learn that URLs obtained from sources other than WWW
> crawling were used to get find WWW pages that were "hidden"
> using only a security-by-obscurit
> Any suggestion that LUG communication is being specifically and
> intentionally monitored by Google or others would be laughable.
> So can we please not go there?
I didn't get the impression that specific monitoring of GNHLUG
was suggested, just that it was surprising (disappointing?)
to learn
I think your premise is mistaken. A link does not gain private status
because it doesn't appear on a website. The contents of this mailing list
are a public discussion forum, including all types of information- URLs,
email addresses, and grandma's secret oatmeal cookie recipe. It is not
email
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
> On 06/13/2013 07:18 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
>> if you Jerry or someone previewed the site with Chrome, Google knows.
>> there are hints that links in email are captured.
>> links in mailing list archives are definitely captured.
No such thing as pr
On 06/13/2013 07:18 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> if you Jerry or someone previewed the site with Chrome, Google knows.
> there are hints that links in email are captured.
> links in mailing list archives are definitely captured.
>
> robots.txt is your only hope. (requires ownership of whole website.)
I
if you Jerry or someone previewed the site with Chrome, Google knows.
there are hints that links in email are captured.
links in mailing list archives are definitely captured.
robots.txt is your only hope. (requires ownership of whole website.)
--
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
Greetings,
On 09 June I gave Jerry Feldman and the LUG community a link to my example
of a simple, "professional-looking" web page (opinions may vary). The link
is private in that the top page of the web site does not link to it.
The next day, Webalizer 2.01 showed that crawl-66-249-72
12 matches
Mail list logo
