[CIMC-work] second response on blocking spammer

[Garth Liebhaber]

For what it's worth, it looks like s/he's moved on. (why do we assume it's a guy? hmmm..) anyway,  
while I would argue this person is worthy of blocking,  they've been the worst we've had in a quite a 
while.  Him and John Locke.  as well as that chris geovanis too ; )  no, not her, we like her...lots!

yes, so maybe we don't have to worry about it too much.  I would be keen to know some of the hits 
info, how many people we think we be viewing, even when they view the most, etc.

take care,
garth

On Mar 5, 2004, at 7:15 PM, ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> my main plea in this debate is that we NOT set up structures that 
> would allow anybody else to, like, use our date to invade someone's 
> privacy. we are still burning our logs, right? and this still means we 
> can't actually count how many hits the site is registering per week, 
> right? (too bad if true, but i'll take no data over 
> privacy-exploitable data in a heartbeat).

We aren't tracking IP addresses, but we are logging hits on the site.  
So we can't see who looked at what, but we can see that someone looked 
at something.  I downloaded the logs a couple days ago and have meant 
to do an analysis to see what kind of traffic we are getting.

I too am a little concerned about tracking IP addresses.  The debug log 
in dada doesn't store plain IP addresses, it encodes them so you can't 
determine the original IP address, and you can block that encoded 
version.  Unfortunately it's not very hard to break the encode, because 
there's a fairly limited number of IP addresses in the world and you 
can just check them all.  We aren't set to debug at that level, so we 
aren't keeping any information, but it's possible to turn the debugging 
up.

  Ian


Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008