Consider the privacy implications of that. It would effectively create a parallel web where `robots.txt` counts for nothing and where it becomes - retroactively - impossible to delete one's site. Yes, there's ultimately no way to prevent it happening, given that the data is public. But to make the existing IA searchable is IMO just a terrible idea.
Actually, I believe the IA respects robots.txt retroactively, eg. putting something on the disallow list now removes the same page scrapes from a yeaer ago from public access in teh Wayback Machine, but I'd love to be corrected on that.
IIRC the IA no longer cares about robots.txt after it kept getting abused [1] to take down older pages. You can still request to take down pages, but it needs a form and a reason. [2]
(Remember, robots.txt is not a privacy measure, it's supposed to be something that prevents crawlers from getting stuck in tar pits!)
Useful to know. My more general position, which apparently is not much shared here, is that removing one's site from the internet has historically meant that the site stops being accessible, stops being indexed, and stops being findable with a simple search. If, going forward, we're going to revise that norm, IMO it would be polite at least to respect it retroactively.
It may do. I remember looking into it and not getting a definitive answer. The issue here is that taking a site offline has surely been widely understood as the ultimate robots.txt `Disallow` instruction to search engines. IMO we should respect that.
(Also, consider that when you forbid such functionality, the only thing that happens is that its development becomes private. It's like DRM: it only hurts legitimate customers.)
