From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#74218: [PATCH] Ask confirmation before sending region to search engine. Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 13:56:00 +0200 Message-ID: <86v7wzp8a7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20241106005544.26516-1-me@fabionatali.com> <86pln8sfqe.fsf@gnu.org> <87ikt0gz7b.fsf@fabionatali.com> <86bjyrqvb0.fsf@gnu.org> <877c9fmn7b.fsf@gmail.com> <867c9fqpx0.fsf@gnu.org> <87v7wzl30n.fsf@gmail.com> <86zfmbpam0.fsf@gnu.org> <87fro3gu3i.fsf@fabionatali.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22187"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 74218@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, me@eshelyaron.com, stefankangas@gmail.com To: Fabio Natali Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 07 12:57:16 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1t918V-0005ZP-Ve for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 12:57:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t918K-0003Dm-Is; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 06:57:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t918I-0003DQ-FE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 06:57:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t918I-0002Dn-6R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 06:57:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:To:Subject; bh=b7ofx/7cB3N6b/1Dy+OhRqx4hCPfWnt2bXW+f3qfTlM=; b=JomNAB8izqL9fmkVb0YhRDzVo5mXFa16Lfoe8fqB/iuhden+Q4SFD8eNoxTK6KOWP1Xm+yUKB9K4efoLtu9w7kVuKp0tihyLqnS/M8OzN4lj+sQ8mCZu6U5BiDaEeurw/j2eATGtu8Gbs5eRdKDS0TbURda6s/7iCO14fxnCCXyhNjaDX8zOMVPZaPooA3mmEfd01TdD2RhI3K59trQhFLDM34vyz/JRK5y2qD87enBg+6QRLMmhyRG0XzXJd/J3vy/9c93bnTkwY8DBGuvxbb+7+QMZBsOvuvTBMLUSr9ViQMiesSUZq+0HsupNFu5fH7kS8YfbqHfVrw3tejQ7FQ==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1t918H-0003gU-RP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 06:57:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:57:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 74218 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 74218-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74218.173098057414102 (code B ref 74218); Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:57:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 74218) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Nov 2024 11:56:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47428 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1t917V-0003fO-Fj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 06:56:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37022) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1t917T-0003f8-7H for 74218@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 06:56:12 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t917N-00029x-9q; Thu, 07 Nov 2024 06:56:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=b7ofx/7cB3N6b/1Dy+OhRqx4hCPfWnt2bXW+f3qfTlM=; b=hjWqP6pRBZ3s wVzOwVBL5gDHn76TnpDDdCb5Tx1tMz3cr4Mi8yHaOhEQiVrP5GXNfZ2KskqUfwpswSwQDlPmtgz9N CwwvftM0M8q3raok7qUBF5seh88bcoTsCXdApPYxCfnQoPY2z3x0H56YSioGB/xkSgSJoQGikXCO2 KxFZA/U637MaXYJCu6J81kH0BulFOC9IiH0zp01XfsWZlsbFRthrgaHWOEpuFQKiu2QlNe+unawQL I9MWW1rnSVkttvNT0QyrO3xPVoTsuB6tOsGbXLLtc4nW8Erf6xILTFS9cgTsOI7PnW57cgG7Jlrq/ USLo/qVGupqhLiH13lI43A==; In-Reply-To: <87fro3gu3i.fsf@fabionatali.com> (message from Fabio Natali on Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:29:37 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:295018 Archived-At: > From: Fabio Natali > Cc: me@eshelyaron.com, 74218@debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:29:37 +0000 > > On 2024-11-07, 13:05 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > My take on it is that the user might not realize that the region is > > very large and includes parts she didn't intend to send. IOW, a > > cockpit error. > > It's not only that. Commands can be typed by mistake. The fact that the > command's docstring warns about its effects is not enough. > > By default, 'eww-search-words' is bound to 'M-s M-w'. The probability of > accidentally mistyping that combination is not at all negligible. I did > discover the command's beheaviour via view-lossage after mistyping 'M-s > M-w', for example. Those are still "cockpit errors", aren't they? Did it happen to you that you typed incorrect phrase into a browser's search window? Does a browser always unconditionally ask you whether you really meant that? > One might argue that, no matter how long, all sequences of keys and > commands could be mistyped, but that'd be a bit misleading. I think that > adding a warning and a yes-or-no confirmation request would make > 'eww-search-words' sufficiently safe, that's the assumption behind my > patch. You ask a valid question, but don't answer it. Indeed, why would we treat this particular command differently from others? "Would be misleading" doesn't provide an answer to the question; instead, it seems to claim that the question itself is invalid. Why is it? > As I said above, I don't think that the sensitivity of a block of text > is a function of its length. Case in point, a password, an address, any > piece of Personally Identifiable Information. Is this the only command which sends user-typed text to the Internet? I don't think so: the first example I could think about is sending email. Do we ask the user for confirmation each time the user types the command to send a message? Why not, and how is this command different, in the general sense? > Users can always override the default and might decide to customise > 'eww-search-words' as they like - but I still think it's important to > provide a safe default, something safer than what we have today. I'm asking why requesting a confirmation in every case is a reasonable default. It is safe, I agree, but it is also annoying in many cases.