> is this really desiderable/needed/effective? Isn't is rather an UI > issue, that is lazily delaying the obfuscation at "print" time? Last but > no least, are there still some email-sniffer out there that doesn't know > about this poor human's attempt to trick them? > > What worries me is that even if it isn't currently used that way, the > .author could have (and has, for darcs for example) an impact in > something behind the scene... At the very least, I'd introduce a > configuration option...
Lele: I pretty much agree with you on every count, but I have a user here who is extremely worried about his e-mail address becoming visible to spammers, so I figured that this little kludge was the fastest way to satisfy him. Really, darcs users can put obfuscated names into their "author" field in the first place if they want! The only problem is that you cannot retroactively do that with patches you have already recorded. So I guess I recommend that you reject my patch (and I will keep it running here locally), unless someone likes it well enough to give it a proper configuration option. :-/ Regards, Zooko _______________________________________________ Tailor mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/tailor
