From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sebastian Wiesner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should the default value of url-user-agent include a version number? What about the specific case of package.el? Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:08:11 +0100 Message-ID: <05663DCE-3E5B-41E2-8657-460B2D013B49@lunaryorn.com> References: <56F42269.10400@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458853713 1213 80.91.229.3 (24 Mar 2016 21:08:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 24 22:08:24 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ajCUR-0006LG-8N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:08:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52781 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajCUQ-0000OX-2P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:08:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35691) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajCUM-0000ON-55 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:08:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajCUI-0005c5-UR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:08:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mx2.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.215]:39570) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajCUI-0005bu-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:08:14 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [80.241.60.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 047B14207D; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:08:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de Original-Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.240]) by gerste.heinlein-support.de (gerste.heinlein-support.de [91.198.250.173]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id 26dXex5NQ9RK; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:08:12 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 80.241.60.215 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:202202 Archived-At: Am 24.03.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Stefan Monnier = : >=20 >>>> (Stefan, for example, your emails are tagged with "Gnus/5.13 (Gnus = v5.13) >>>> Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)"). Has there been complaints about Gnus >>>> doing that? >>> I never liked it, but admittedly, I never complained about it. >> May I ask why you do not like this behaviour? What stands against it? >=20 > That's just a leak of private information. I must admit that I find it hard to agree. I do not see how the OS, or = the Emacs version, or=20 the combination of both could be used to identify you as a person. But = if the can't, why would you consider this information private? And even if it could, = doesn't it pale beside the information that is necessarily send to the archive (e.g. your IP, a = partial list of the packages you're using, etc.)? I think that our desire as package maintainers to learn how and where = their packages are used is legitimate. It helps us to direct our efforts and our time to = those enviroments that matter and to make informed choices about what degree of backwards = compatibility we should offer. In the absence of any concrete risk, I tend to value our = desire higher=20 than the interest of users to keep data private that can only be used = for anonymous usage=20 statistics. Now, I understand that I'm biased, and that your priorities may be = fundamentally different from mine. But I believe that the availability of some halfway solid = statistics would improve our ability to make informed decisions about our packages.=