Look below code, line number 17.
Is there any reason use “no-reply@example.com”?
How about remove “no-reply@example.com” on list.rss.erb?
AI-generated summary
The discussion revolves around the use of “no-reply@example.com” as the author email address in Discourse’s RSS feed. Jong questions the reason behind this and suggests removing it. codinghorror asks what the RSS spec requires, and gerhard explains that the <author> element is optional and should contain the author’s email address. However, since disclosing users’ email addresses is a concern, using “no-reply@example.com” doesn’t make sense. jaming considers it a bug, and gerhard suggests removing the <author> element altogether, as it’s optional and worthless. codinghorror asks if publishing users’ email addresses in RSS is desirable, and gerhard responds that it’s irresponsible. gerhard and jaming agree that removing the <author> element is the best solution, as the author’s name and profile link are already available in the <description> field. christian_leder proposes using a FOAF mbox_sha1sum, but gerhard thinks this is not an option due to the RSS spec requirements.
2 Likes
What does the RSS spec require here?
1 Like
From the RSS 2.0 Specification:
<author>is an optional sub-element of<item>.It’s the email address of the author of the item. For newspapers and magazines syndicating via RSS, the author is the person who wrote the article that the
<item>describes. For collaborative weblogs, the author of the item might be different from the managing editor or webmaster. For a weblog authored by a single individual it would make sense to omit the element.
<author>lawyer@boyer.net (Lawyer Boyer)</author>
I guess it could be removed since it’s optional and there is already a link to the author’s profile page in the <description>. I get that we don’t want to disclose the user’s mail address, but the no-reply address doesn’t make much sense either.
My feed reader shows it like this:
3 Likes
I agree!
It doesn’t make much sense either.
It’s because the RSS spec says
It’s the email address of the author of the item
Do you maintain the spec is incorrect?
I think the issue is “no-reply@example.com” is not the email address of the author of the item—it is hardcoded. Seems like a bug to me.
Have a look:
Source of screenshot:
Do you think we should be publishing the email address, in RSS, of every person who posts on Discourse?
No, just remove it. There is no value in showing a wrong email address and disclosing the real one is just irresponsible.
4 Likes
Is it valid to put data in a field that requires email, which no longer contains email?
I don’t think so. I’d completely remove the <author> item (not just the email address) since it’s optional and worthless. The author’s name is already in the <description> field and it links to the author’s profile page.
2 Likes
just an idea: one could use the foaf:mbox_sha1sum as defined in foaf FOAF Vocabulary Specification which identifies the author uniquely without disclosing his real email address.
Well, the spec says:
It’s the email address of the author of the item.
So, using anything else is not really an option. Moreover, the hash would be as worthless as the current no-reply address. Or did I miss something?
As I see it the purpose of the optional <author> field is to identify the author and to provide an email address that lets me contact the author. Due to privacy concerns that’s not really an option here. However, the first thing in the <description>field is the name of the author and a link to the user’s profile page. Isn’t that enough?
1 Like
I agree, it will still be clear who wrote what posts.
author tag was removed in 2015: Convert author tag to dc:creator · discourse/discourse@195cdae · GitHub