Runter
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,074
Joined: Jun 1, 2006
|
#16 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 2:48 pm
|
Well, I'll just say I think the entire issue can be fixed by separating "spam" from your log.
But the point is moot, since you don't want to talk about logging techniques. ;)
|
|
.........................
-Heath
For once you have tasted flight Ruby you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards,
for there you have been and there you will long to return. --
Leonardo Da Vinci Yukihiro Matsumoto
|
|
Mabus
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
|
#17 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 2:51 pm
|
Which brings up a simple option:
Why not have the crawler check for a mssp.txt at the MUD website before sending connection info? If it encounters a 404 it doesn't crawl the MUD. Those that want to enable MSSP can simply drop a mssp.txt into the public_html.
Not even sure if this is possible or workable, but I thought to throw a positive idea rather then sound dismissive.
|
......................... -Mabus
Insomniac Coder
|
|
|
|
Mabus
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
|
#19 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 2:55 pm
|
David Haley said:Not all MUDs have websites, so it wouldn't be workable and besides defeats the purpose of the exercise. I maintain that the point of a crawler is to try crawling, and people can opt out if they want to. Think of how Google and other search engines work: you tell them to stop, you don't give them permission to start.
That is why I brought up robots.txt (the robots exclusion).
|
......................... -Mabus
Insomniac Coder
|
|
|
|
Mabus
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
|
#21 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:02 pm
|
David Haley said:Your proposal is not the same as robots.txt for search engines. You proposed that it only crawl if it finds the text file. I say that it should crawl unless it finds a text file saying not to. (Or, let MUDs opt out at the crawler website.)
Any option that allows MUDs the choice to be included or not is fine by me. Any option to opt out is better then none.
I am just glad that more MUD websites are not running this crawler.
|
......................... -Mabus
Insomniac Coder
|
|
Cratylus
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,224
Joined: May 22, 2006
|
#22 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:30 pm
|
Mabus said:I am just glad that more MUD websites are not running this crawler.
The hope is that they will.
Not only that, but there's absolutely no way to ensure that crawlers/clients in the
future will care in the slightest about how uptight some muds are regarding who
touches their login port.
This is why I am suggesting you get used to it, don't look at it, or drop mssp
connections in a logging black hole.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
|
|
|
Mabus
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
|
#23 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:46 pm
|
Cratylus said:
This is why I am suggesting you get used to it, don't look at it, or drop mssp
connections in a logging black hole.
So games that do not MSSP should modify their code to account for an unwanted and intrusive (my opinion) protocol?
How about if I come up with MSGP (MUD Sucking Garbage Protocol) and start slamming every MUDs login every 1 to 2 minutes?
Would that be fine with you as well? Would you modify your code to not log connections just for my new protocol?
And then the next group that comes up with MSCM (MUD Spam Connection Monster), and the next, and the next?
Ban the IP. Block the IP. Try to politely get them to stop (if able). Then contact the ISP and the authorities.
I am at the polite stage.
|
......................... -Mabus
Insomniac Coder
|
|
Cratylus
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,224
Joined: May 22, 2006
|
#24 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:48 pm
|
Perhaps a Let's Keep Things In Proportion protocol.
-Crat
|
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 5,727
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#25 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:52 pm
|
I think you're not seeing the point here. This is exactly what happens with web servers or any number of servers. Most of the time, it's actually desirable!
If you created a junk protocol whose sole purpose was to annoy people, well, people would ask you to stop, and if you didn't, they would try to make you stop (by contacting your ISP) or ban your IP or modify their logging system or whatever. Yeah, sucks to do extra work, but that's life if they can't make you stop.
I'm just not seeing what point you're trying to make. You can't truly stop people from doing annoying things short of somehow disconnecting them from the internet (which would require contacting the ISP and authorities). But frankly, connecting to a publicly open port isn't actually doing anything wrong, so I don't think you'd get very far with that.
So yes, if your logging system bugs you, you might have to fix it. C'est la vie, I guess. :shrug:
There's an easy solution here, in this case, so we can all be happy for now.
|
|
|
Mabus
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
|
#26 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:52 pm
|
Cratylus said:Perhaps a Let's Keep Things In Proportion protocol.
Yes, let's.
The unwanted multiple connections in a short period of time could obstruct the communication between our intended users and our service.
|
......................... -Mabus
Insomniac Coder
|
|
|
|
Mabus
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
|
#28 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:58 pm
|
David Haley said:Mabus, everybody has already agreed that the connections are too frequent. Why do you keep hammering that point? We get it already, we agreed, let's move on.
Give us an opt out, and we move on.
It is the defenses of "this is just how it is!" and "you should now change your login sequence code to account for a protocol you do not want" and "logging connections is bad" that need to move on.
If I receive another log like I did today I will be forwarding it, and the current ones, to the ISP and my state authorities as a possible denial of service attack.
|
......................... -Mabus
Insomniac Coder
|
|
wrkq
Apprentice
Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: Dec 28, 2008
|
#29 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 3:58 pm
|
Also. if one additional connection to the login screen every minute may "obstruct the communication between your intended users and your service" there's something seriously wrong with your design.
|
|
|
Hades_Kane
Wizard
Group: Moderators
Posts: 786
Joined: May 31, 2006
|
#30 Posted Jun 25, 2009, 4:03 pm
|
David Haley said:There's an easy solution here, in this case, so we can all be happy for now.
I agree, there is an easy solution here, and it shouldn't be up to every MUD Administrator that doesn't want this spamming their game to modify the way they handle their game.
David Haley said:Mabus, everybody has already agreed that the connections are too frequent. Why do you keep hammering that point? We get it already, we agreed, let's move on.
Probably because he's been being hammered, almost attacked (at least talked down to) over a simple and quite reasonable request.
I know me personally, I've taken numerous steps to reduce the amount of spam in my log files. I want them to be useful, I've cut out things that just make them cumbersome to deal with. Trying to find useful information in between literally dozens of failed connection attempts makes it quite an annoyance. It makes it even worse for someone like me who has chosen to see the initial connection information of anyone connecting to the game prior to them even entering in a name. I wasn't on during the duration of the attempts, thankfully, but had I been, that would have caused considerable annoyance for me and if a MUD based ban wouldn't have worked, I'd have likely banned it server side... but not everyone has server side access to be able to do something like that.
I'll probably actually end up implementing MSSP, I think it has its merits definitely, but I think that giving more control to the MUD Admins as to how it behaves in regards to their MUD would be desirable. I think being able to opt-in or opt-out (I don't care either way) on your listing configuration or profile would be ideal as to avoid people having to add in code to prevent it, and certainly some option to tell the crawler how frequently to check your MUD would be good too.
I'm actually surprised as to the number of "well, deal with it" responses Mabus has received, and I think that most of the responses to his (again I stress) reasonable request has been a bit uncalled for.
|
......................... -Diablos of End of Time, eotmud.com:4000, Final Fantasy themed -- Seeking Builders! For more info visit: http://www.eotmud.com/
|
|
