The atom feed for the ports repo is behind bot protection, which makes it useless as it is for consumation of feed readers and not web browsers. I guess other feeds are behind bot protection too, but I haven't checked.
For some reason the bot protection is ignored when curl is send as User-Agent string, so as a workaround that can be used till bot protection is disabled for resources intended for bots. I also checked the src feed, that is also behind bot protection, but the SA&EN feed is not.
We have a couple of local Anubis bypass policies, including one for curl. Please let us know the User-Agent: or another identifying marker for your feed reader so we can add it to the allowlist. As far as I can tell we don't have an allowlist for paths. Maybe we should have one. I'll try to figure out how to do that.
What's the URL of the feeds you're trying to access? I just checked in more detail: the SA&EN feed is on www.FreeBSD.org, which doesn't go via Anubis. So that's good. We should easily be able to sort you out too. :)
https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/atom/?h=main and https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/atom/?h=main are behind bot protection. I'm using RSS Guard on my FreeBSD system, it seems like it uses "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0 RSS Guard/4.8.6" as User-Agent. But a path-based approach seems like a better idea, than adding bypasses for every feed reader in existence and other consumers of those feeds. Additionally feed readers can autodiscover feeds via <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" …> (or type="application/rss+xml" for rss feeds) so it would be nice to allow a single request to https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/ (and /src/), so that well-behaved feed readers can perform autodiscovery, before treating them as unwanted for that page. But no idea how complex Anubis can be configured or maybe that page is also fine without bot protection.
I added Anubis rules to permit /{doc,ports,src}/atom/ without being challenged. I believe our rules are reloaded every ten minutes. Please let me know whether you see any improvement. Thanks!
(In reply to Philip Paeps from comment #5) It works fine now, thanks
Thanks for confirming!