From: Tim X Date: 2007-03-15T16:15:06+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby.on-page.net - Evolution began "Des" writes: > On 13 мар, 10:27, Tim X wrote: > >>Rather than asking an end user to provide you with this information, wouldn't >>it be better to look in the web logs? > > Yes it would be better for all, who like to get everything and to do > nothing... A little defensive perhaps? I wasn't meaning to cause any offence. It was supposed to be a constructive suggestion to make your life easier. A simple grep through the web logs - would give you an idea of which browsers are being rejected and what the varying identifier/agent strings are. I thought this might be particularly useful with respect to Firefox since many distros are now shipping it under various names due to the firefox licensing change relating to copyright of its name/icon. > I really can't do it on my own. > May be, I will try... day by day, block by block... and you, you can > just seat and watch, or you can really help me by doing just a few > clicks. I would have done that, except I joined the discussion late and the URL wasn't repeated in later messages. However, I don't run firefox. > >>In fact, you could probably do a quick >>analysis and see exactly what your app is rejecting and what it isn't to make >>sure your not getting (too many) false positives. > > I can't remember all the content of the page, so I have to look for > existing blocks every time before adding something, as any other. And > I made the pre-moderation just against a spam. I can appreciate that - my suggestion was because I thought the idea was potentially a good one, but that you would lose valuable support/interest if too many legitimate users are rejected - many won't bother contacting you or trying again later. If your worried about spammers/abuse, perhaps consider inverting how you look at the risk. Rather than assuming spammers/abusers, assume everyone will be OK for at least a few page retrievals, but possibly block the IP address after X number. this would give maximum access during development, but provide some measure against abuse and buy you time to put a more robust solution in place. > > And at last - it is not a commercial project, and there is no ads, as > you can see. > This page was made by user for user... Again, I'm not having a go. I was trying to help with a suggestion on a better way to track what browsers people are trying to use, which I thought would be easier than back and forward e-mails trying to get the exact string to put into your config to allow the browser access. Ignore it if you want. However, if you plan to get community help, I would suggest slightly thicker skin is required - its probably better to just ignore anything yo don't like or don't agree with. good luck Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au