Skip to content

Reject crawlers by default - #734

Closed
benrubson wants to merge 1 commit into
BookStackApp:masterfrom
benrubson:robots
Closed

benrubson wants to merge 1 commit into
BookStackApp:masterfrom
benrubson:robots

Conversation

@benrubson

@benrubson benrubson commented Mar 6, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hi,

This PR modifies robots.txt file so that crawlers are rejected by default.
I think it's a more secure default setting.
One who is in an indexing process generally knows what he does, and then modifies robots.txt accordingly.

Thank you 👍

Ben

@ssddanbrown

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hi @benrubson,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and creating this pull request, Never really thought about the included robots.txt file before.

I completely agree with rejecting by default but thinking we should achieve this with a configurable solution. As it stands, If the robots.txt is altered it will throw a conflict upon update.

Thinking we could have this toggle-able via the .env and either add a robots.txt endpoint or possibly set a robots meta tag instead.
I'm siding on a robots.txt endpoint as we could configure the file as a template which then could be overridden by the user, to extend or set additional rules, via theming if they wanted.

@benrubson

benrubson commented Mar 10, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi @ssddanbrown,

Thank you very much for your answer 👍

I agree, would be nice it if could be user-configurable.
Regarding the method, I don't really know what would be best.
Perhaps a simple on/off switch (reject/accept crawlers) in admin panel would be sufficient ?

Thank you !

@Abijeet

Abijeet commented Mar 10, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm OK with allowing users to configure, but would also like to have it turned off by default.

@ssddanbrown

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks again @benrubson for raising this and providing a potential solution.

I have now implemented a configurable solution as discussed above. Details of implementation and use can be seen in #779. This will be in the next release.

I will therefore go ahead and close this pull request.

@benrubson

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Perfect thank you Dan 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants