We got zero.

I did see a group of kids walking down the street at dusk, but they weren't in costume, and it seemed they were headed towards a party at a house down the street.

And that was it.

Great. More candy that will go to waist.

Sigh.

So, to learn more about his death, and celebrate it with one of his favorite desserts, bread and butter custard, you might want to watch ?The Mysterious Death of Harry Houdini.?

Happy Hallowe'en, everybody!

?Twenty dollars for that??

?Yes.?

?They certainly know how to price gouge.?

?Maybe next year we switch to candy corn.?

?You know what I would really hate to get if I were to Trick-or-Treat??

?What??

?An apple.?

?Well, it could be worse. I've heard some people give out dental floss for Trick-or-Treating.?

?Dental floss? If I got that, I'd egg their house!?

?That won't happen. Eggs are too expensive these days.?

?We do, huh??

?Yes. With the fun sized bars, I can sneak one a day. If it's the big bars ? well ? Katey bar the door!?

?Okay, I'll go get a bag of Hershey's Fun Sized bars.?

?You don't trust me to get a few bags??

?A few bags? How many kids are you expecting to show up??

?How many do you think will show up??

?Two.?

?Two??

?Yes. So you're saying we give a bag of Hershey's Fun Sized bars to each child? Here! You get a whole bag! And you get a whole bag!?

?No! I expect there to be leftovers!?

?That's what I'm afraid of.?

?Phththththththth!?

User-agent: gopher-mcp
Disallow: /

User-agent: GPTBot
Disallow: /

User-agent: ChatGPT-User
Disallow: /

User-agent: OAI-SearchBot
Disallow: /

User-agent: ClaudeBot
Disallow: /

User-agent: anthropic-ai
Disallow: /

User-agent: Claude-Web
Disallow: /

User-agent: Claude-User
Disallow: /

User-agent: Google-Extended
Disallow: /

There are problems with this advice. First off, Gopher doesn't support additional information per a request, unlike HTTP. There is no way a Gopher client can identify itself to a Gopher server. Well, there is a hack one could use: include a search query when retrieving the /robots.txt file, but the current Gopher standard says little about how a server responds to a search query on a non-search-query selector. I mean, it's probably okay as most servers will (hopefully?) ignore the search query on a non-search query selector. And the above list will (hoefully?) work for the given LLMs, but what about a new LLM not in the list above? How do you learn about those?

Gemini, which also doesn't have a way for clients to identify themselves, found a clever workaround: specify a virtual user agent based on the type of work:

1. archiver for agents archiving Gemini;
2. indexer for agents indexing Gemini;
3. researcher for agents studying statistical properties of Gemini.
4. webproxy for agents bridging Gemini to HTTP;

I suppose one could add llm (or ai) for the current crop of LLM agents to this list. But this doesn't solve the larger issue with using /robots.txt with Gopher: Gopher selectors are opaque strings:

Servers return either directory lists or documents. Each item in a directory is identified by a type ?, user-visible name ?, an opaque selector string ?, a host name ?, and an IP port number ?

RFC 1436: The Internet Gopher Protocol (emphasis added)

Unlike HTTP and Gemini URLs where the ?selector? has an actual structure, Gopher selectors aren't defined as such. They are to be treated as a block of characters that, went sent as is to a Gopher server, return data. In fact, Gopher URLs aren't even compatible with HTTP or Gemini URLs and have their own RFC. Gopher ?links? (because they aren't ?links? in the way that a HTTP or Gemini define them) contain the type of data to be served to inform the client what to expect. Because of this, the Gopher URL has to include this ?type? information. Furthermore, a Gopher selector doesn't have to start with a leading '/', or even have a '/' in it! So the Gopher URL for my blog is gopher://gopher.conman.org/1Phlog:. While there is a '/' separating the domain from the selector, that's it. The '/' there is required per the Gopher URL RFC, but it's not part of the selector like it is for the ?path? for HTTP or Gemini. The ?1? is the type (in this case, it designates that the document is a ?Gopher map? which is links to further documents), and is not part of the selector either. It just exists to inform the client what to expect. The actual selector sent to the Gopher server is ?Phlog:?. And that's the problem.

That example /robots.txt above just won't work on my Gopher server. An empty Disallow: line explicitly indicates ?nothing is disallowed?. A Disallow: line of ?/? for HTTP and Gemini explicitly indicates ?everything is disallowed? (given how /robots.txt defines matches).

I don't even know how one would disallow selectors for Gopher in /robots.txt. The leading ?/? and type character in a Gopher URL aren't part of the selector, and in the /robots.txt standard, all possible matches start with a leading ?/? because all ?selectors? for HTTP and Gemini do start with a leading ?/?.

If I'm find with disallowing all crawling by an LLM, then doing a ?Disallow: ? would be fine, but if I wanted to prevent an LLM from going into certain parts of my Gopher site, such as gopher://gopher.conman.org/1BlackHole:, there is no way I could actually specify it. I can't specify ?Disallow: /Blackhole:? because that selector doesn't start with a ?/?. And I don't think ?Disallow: /1Blackhole? would work because the ?1? isn't part of the selector either.

The agent can't just ignore the leading ?/?, because if a selector does start with a ?/?, then the entry in the /robots.txt file would have to be ?Disallow: //foo?.

And I suspect I'm overthinking this. I just checked the /robots.txt on my Gopher server and forgot I had this:

User-agent: *
Disallow: Blackhole:

Even though there's a ?link? to that selector on the main page, no one crawls through it. So perhaps it's working? Maybe?

Yeah, while I think I'm overthinking on this, I also don't think /robots.txt really can apply to Gopher in a general sense (or rather?my Gopher server in particular since my selectors generally don't start with ?/?).

1. he thought his email address was actually ?seanconner@gmail.com?;
2. it was a transcription error and it should have been something like ?seangconner@gmail.com?;
3. his email address is something like ?seanconner@example.com? and Gmail handles his email at this domain (so it's a Gmail bug);
4. he doesn't have an email address and just made it up on the spot;
5. he messing with me (I seriously doubt this one).

I don't have high hopes though. I mean, what would you do if you recieved a piece of snail mail from you (from an address you have no knowledge of) addressed to you? I can see being a bit freaked out about it, but you never know.

?It is. The asphalt isn't as tacky.?