Ruby.on-page.net - Evolution began

Ruby
21

Hi,

In message “Re: Ruby.on-page.net - Evolution began”
on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:28:00 +0900, [email protected] writes:

|hi matz - just out of curiosity, what’s your reason for using firefox?

I have no other choices on Debian GNU/Linux. Other graphical browsers
had compatibility problem last time I tried.

          matz.
22

On 13 ÍÁÒ, 10:27, Tim X [email protected] 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…
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.

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.

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…

23

“Des” [email protected] writes:

Rather than asking an end user to provide you with this information,
wouldn’t
it be better to look in the web logs? 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.

Tim

24

“Des” [email protected] writes:

On 13 мар, 10:27, Tim X [email protected] 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