robotsparser deny all with some rules

[Wats0ns]

BPO	36207
Nosy	@vstinner, @Wats0ns, @iritkatriel

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2019-03-06.09:42:01.201>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library', '3.11']
title = 'robotsparser deny all with some rules'
updated_at = <Date 2022-04-06.10:21:58.234>
user = 'https://github.com/Wats0ns'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2022-04-06.10:21:58.234>
actor = 'vstinner'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2019-03-06.09:42:01.201>
creator = 'quentin-maire'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 36207
keywords = []
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['337285', '338293', '338298', '390073', '408351', '416852']
nosy_count = 6.0
nosy_names = ['vstinner', 'quentin-maire', 'iritkatriel', 'EricG', 'nico.bonefato', 'adiboo67']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = None
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue36207'
versions = ['Python 3.11']

[Wats0ns]

RobotsParser parse a "Disallow: ?" rule as a deny all, but this is a valid rule that should be interpreted as "Disallow: /?" or "Disallow: /?*"

[csabella]

Can you provide a link to documentation showing that "Disallow: ?" shouldn't be the same as deny all? Thanks!

[Wats0ns]

I can't find a documentation about it, but all of the robots.txt checkers I find behave like this. You can test on this site: http://www.eskimoz.fr/robots.txt, I believe that this is how it's implemented now in most parsers ?

[vstinner]

I removed almost all messages of this issue since most of them looked list SPAM. I also blocked user accounts who posted SPAM. If it was a mistake, contact me.

This is the Python bug tracker, not a forum to ask questions how to use Python, or to report bugs in your website.

Multiple comments were written in French, whereas this bug tracker is in English.

I even hesitate to close the issue since it got too many SPAM comments.

[iritkatriel]

I restored one non-spam message from the OP that was deleted.

Changing to enhancement because this is not a bug (i.e., deviation from documentation).

I don't know enough about this to have a view on whether this enhancement request should be accepted.

[vstinner]

I removed two comments: none of the mentioned URL contains a "Disallow: ?" rule and the comments didn't add any value to this issue. It looks like regular spam (SEO).