[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:15:00 GMT, Dave Korn said:
>
> > difference? robots.txt is enforced (or ignored) by the client. If a
> > server
> > returns a 403 or doesn't, depending on what UserAgent you specified,
> > then
> > how could making the client ignore robots.txt somehow magically make the
> > server not return a 403 when you try to fetch a page?
>
> It *can*, however, make the client *issue* a request it would otherwise
> not have.
>
> If the client had snarfed a robots.txt, and it said "don't snarf anything
> under /dontlook/here/", and a link pointed there. it wouldn't follow the
> link.
>
>If you tell it 'robots=off', then it *would* follow the link.
Yes, these are all extremely obvious truisms, but I think now you need to
go back and read the thread, because you haven't noticed that they're
utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.
> Remember - robots.txt *isn't* for the pages that would 403.
See, thing is, "pages that would 403" is /exactly/ what we were talking
about. So saying "switch off robots.txt" is a completely irrelevant
response. And the fact that doing so _would_ have /an/ effect in /other/
circumstances doesn't make it any less irrelevant, at least not according to
any definition of the word "relevant" that I've ever seen!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
