HTML portion

Michael Fesser

..oO(Chilly8)

>"Michael" <.au> wrote in message
>news:475759e0$0$18454$.. .
>>
>> Apache logs much?
>>
>> There are plenty of good utilities to view these logs: analog, awstats and
>> webalizer just to name a few.
>
>
>Ah, but with StatCounter, I get much more detailed information. I can find
>out what
>search engines they linked on, what keywords were used, I also get
>information on
>what browser, operating system, and even what screen resolution was used.
>None
>of the products you mentioned can do that.

AWStats can do, even if some of these informations (screen res for
example) are pretty useless or unreliable, because they require
JavaScript on the pages to get these informations from the client.

Micha

Chilly8

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> Chilly8 wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>
>>
>>>> It appears that by simply blocking incoming traffic from the networks
>>>> of three data centers around the world has stopped it. I have only see
>>>> one "phony" registration all day, coming from China. Blocking all
>>>> traffic from inHoster in Ukraine, Keymachine in Germany, and
>>>> FDC servers in Chicago has pretty much stopped the **** bots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> For now. But how many legitimate users might you be blocking, also?
>>>
>>> Blocking an entire range of addresses is almost never the right answer.
>>> Just the expedient one.
>>
>>
>> I doubt I would be blocking any legitimate users, as those sites I
>> mentioned
>> are all server colocation facilities. It appears that somoene has
>> compromised
>> all the machines at least two of those server farms. It might be possible
>> that
>> some users, trying to use a proxy from work to acoid detection by the
>> boss, might be affected by blocking FDC servers, since a couple of
>> popular anonymity services use FDC for their server needs, but
>> beyond that, I don't think many legitimate users will be affected, but
>> there really is no other answer to the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There are lots of other answers to the problem. Some have been listed
> right here. And none of them involve blocking a whole range of IP
> addresses.

By blocking them at the firewall level, it will appear the spammers using
the compromised machines at FDC, inHoster, and Keymachine that my
site went down, since they will get the 404 Server Not Found. It will
appear on their end that my site went down, and they will NEVER
figure out what I did. I figure they will go away after a while. I have
SuperXXX**** and BestInWeb stopped DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS.
I have them totally outsmarted, adn they will NEVER figure out what
happened.

Norman Peelman

Chilly8 wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It appears that by simply blocking incoming traffic from the networks
>>>>> of three data centers around the world has stopped it. I have only see
>>>>> one "phony" registration all day, coming from China. Blocking all
>>>>> traffic from inHoster in Ukraine, Keymachine in Germany, and
>>>>> FDC servers in Chicago has pretty much stopped the **** bots.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> For now. But how many legitimate users might you be blocking, also?
>>>>
>>>> Blocking an entire range of addresses is almost never the right answer.
>>>> Just the expedient one.
>>>
>>> I doubt I would be blocking any legitimate users, as those sites I
>>> mentioned
>>> are all server colocation facilities. It appears that somoene has
>>> compromised
>>> all the machines at least two of those server farms. It might be possible
>>> that
>>> some users, trying to use a proxy from work to acoid detection by the
>>> boss, might be affected by blocking FDC servers, since a couple of
>>> popular anonymity services use FDC for their server needs, but
>>> beyond that, I don't think many legitimate users will be affected, but
>>> there really is no other answer to the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There are lots of other answers to the problem. Some have been listed
>> right here. And none of them involve blocking a whole range of IP
>> addresses.
>
> By blocking them at the firewall level, it will appear the spammers using
> the compromised machines at FDC, inHoster, and Keymachine that my
> site went down, since they will get the 404 Server Not Found. It will
> appear on their end that my site went down, and they will NEVER
> figure out what I did. I figure they will go away after a while. I have
> SuperXXX**** and BestInWeb stopped DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS.
> I have them totally outsmarted, adn they will NEVER figure out what
> happened.
>
>
>

I've given up watching CSI Miami just to watch this thread...
entertainment at it finest (2nd only to OMH).

---
Norm

Michael

Chilly8 wrote:
> "Michael" <.au> wrote in message
> news:475759e0$0$18454$...
>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>>> news:. ..
>>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that by simply blocking incoming traffic from the networks
>>>>>>> of three data centers around the world has stopped it. I have only
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> one "phony" registration all day, coming from China. Blocking all
>>>>>>> traffic from inHoster in Ukraine, Keymachine in Germany, and
>>>>>>> FDC servers in Chicago has pretty much stopped the **** bots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For now. But how many legitimate users might you be blocking, also?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blocking an entire range of addresses is almost never the right
>>>>>> answer. Just the expedient one.
>>>>> I doubt I would be blocking any legitimate users, as those sites I
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>> are all server colocation facilities. It appears that somoene has
>>>>> compromised
>>>>> all the machines at least two of those server farms. It might be
>>>>> possible that
>>>>> some users, trying to use a proxy from work to acoid detection by the
>>>>> boss, might be affected by blocking FDC servers, since a couple of
>>>>> popular anonymity services use FDC for their server needs, but
>>>>> beyond that, I don't think many legitimate users will be affected, but
>>>>> there really is no other answer to the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> There are lots of other answers to the problem. Some have been listed
>>>> right here. And none of them involve blocking a whole range of IP
>>>> addresses.
>>> Well, these are all just server farms, where people place web servers, so
>>> the only humans using the machines, other than people browsing the web
>>> sites, would be the individual web site admins, so other than maybe
>>> somoene trying to use a Web proxy from work to hide what they are
>>> doing from the boss, I don't think I would be impacting that many users.
>>>
>>> Like I said, blocking all traffic from those three data centers has cut
>>> the problem of people posting **** links down to almost nothing. I
>>> get maybe a handful a day, but not the dozens a day I was getting.
>>> I don't think I will see anymore from folks like SuperXXX****
>>> or BestinWeb. I got them stopped dead in their tracks.
>>>
>>> If you are running any servers hosted at the datacenters of Inhoster,
>>> Keymachine, or FDC servers, you better check and see that
>>> your servers have not been compromised by these people that
>>> are doing this. 99.9 percent of the traffic that was posting ****
>>> links were coming from compromised machines at these data
>>> centers. And there is no POSSIBLE way I could have
>>> discovered this without using a main page translated to HTML
>>> and having all the traffic logged with StatCounter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Apache logs much?
>>
>> There are plenty of good utilities to view these logs: analog, awstats and
>> webalizer just to name a few.
>
>
> Ah, but with StatCounter, I get much more detailed information. I can find
> out what
> search engines they linked on, what keywords were used, I also get
> information on
> what browser, operating system, and even what screen resolution was used.
> None
> of the products you mentioned can do that.
>
>

Read up about them before you state what they can and can't do.
StatCounter and all those other online solutions are seriously flawed.

Here are the cons of StatCounter:
- Commercial Software
- Relies on JavaScript
- Can only track files that JavaScript is embedded in
- Your information is kept with a Third Party

Awstats does everything statcounter can do as far as I know.

- Michael

Michael

Norman Peelman wrote:
> Chilly8 wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that by simply blocking incoming traffic from the networks
>>>>>> of three data centers around the world has stopped it. I have only
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> one "phony" registration all day, coming from China. Blocking all
>>>>>> traffic from inHoster in Ukraine, Keymachine in Germany, and
>>>>>> FDC servers in Chicago has pretty much stopped the **** bots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> For now. But how many legitimate users might you be blocking, also?
>>>>>
>>>>> Blocking an entire range of addresses is almost never the right
>>>>> answer. Just the expedient one.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt I would be blocking any legitimate users, as those sites I
>>>> mentioned
>>>> are all server colocation facilities. It appears that somoene has
>>>> compromised
>>>> all the machines at least two of those server farms. It might be
>>>> possible that
>>>> some users, trying to use a proxy from work to acoid detection by the
>>>> boss, might be affected by blocking FDC servers, since a couple of
>>>> popular anonymity services use FDC for their server needs, but
>>>> beyond that, I don't think many legitimate users will be affected, but
>>>> there really is no other answer to the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There are lots of other answers to the problem. Some have been
>>> listed right here. And none of them involve blocking a whole range
>>> of IP addresses.
>>
>> By blocking them at the firewall level, it will appear the spammers using
>> the compromised machines at FDC, inHoster, and Keymachine that my
>> site went down, since they will get the 404 Server Not Found. It will
>> appear on their end that my site went down, and they will NEVER
>> figure out what I did. I figure they will go away after a while. I have
>> SuperXXX**** and BestInWeb stopped DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS.
>> I have them totally outsmarted, adn they will NEVER figure out what
>> happened.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I've given up watching CSI Miami just to watch this thread...
> entertainment at it finest (2nd only to OMH).
>
> ---
> Norm

LOL I second that.

Chilly8

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Norman Peelman" <.com> wrote in message
news:47588a92$0$2546$...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that by simply blocking incoming traffic from the networks
>>>>>> of three data centers around the world has stopped it. I have only
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> one "phony" registration all day, coming from China. Blocking all
>>>>>> traffic from inHoster in Ukraine, Keymachine in Germany, and
>>>>>> FDC servers in Chicago has pretty much stopped the **** bots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> For now. But how many legitimate users might you be blocking, also?
>>>>>
>>>>> Blocking an entire range of addresses is almost never the right
>>>>> answer. Just the expedient one.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt I would be blocking any legitimate users, as those sites I
>>>> mentioned
>>>> are all server colocation facilities. It appears that somoene has
>>>> compromised
>>>> all the machines at least two of those server farms. It might be
>>>> possible that
>>>> some users, trying to use a proxy from work to acoid detection by the
>>>> boss, might be affected by blocking FDC servers, since a couple of
>>>> popular anonymity services use FDC for their server needs, but
>>>> beyond that, I don't think many legitimate users will be affected, but
>>>> there really is no other answer to the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There are lots of other answers to the problem. Some have been listed
>>> right here. And none of them involve blocking a whole range of IP
>>> addresses.
>>
>> By blocking them at the firewall level, it will appear the spammers using
>> the compromised machines at FDC, inHoster, and Keymachine that my
>> site went down, since they will get the 404 Server Not Found. It will
>> appear on their end that my site went down, and they will NEVER
>> figure out what I did. I figure they will go away after a while. I have
>> SuperXXX**** and BestInWeb stopped DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS.
>> I have them totally outsmarted, adn they will NEVER figure out what
>> happened.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I've given up watching CSI Miami just to watch this thread...
> entertainment at it finest (2nd only to OMH).

No matter what, the board will be inacessible for a few days anyway.
My domain provider includes web submission in its service, but I have
to have the page running from their servers, in order for an updated
submission to the search engines, so no matter where they come from,
they will in 1and1's version of Page Not Found for a few days, while
I wait for their search engine submission service, that I am paying for,
to submit the most current version of my main page to the search engines.

Onideus Mad Hatter

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:38:23 +1030, Michael
<.au> wrote:

>Chilly8 wrote:
>> "Michael" <.au> wrote in message
>> news:475759e0$0$18454$...
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:. ..
>>>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears that by simply blocking incoming traffic from the networks
>>>>>>>> of three data centers around the world has stopped it. I have only
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> one "phony" registration all day, coming from China. Blocking all
>>>>>>>> traffic from inHoster in Ukraine, Keymachine in Germany, and
>>>>>>>> FDC servers in Chicago has pretty much stopped the **** bots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For now. But how many legitimate users might you be blocking, also?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blocking an entire range of addresses is almost never the right
>>>>>>> answer. Just the expedient one.
>>>>>> I doubt I would be blocking any legitimate users, as those sites I
>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>> are all server colocation facilities. It appears that somoene has
>>>>>> compromised
>>>>>> all the machines at least two of those server farms. It might be
>>>>>> possible that
>>>>>> some users, trying to use a proxy from work to acoid detection by the
>>>>>> boss, might be affected by blocking FDC servers, since a couple of
>>>>>> popular anonymity services use FDC for their server needs, but
>>>>>> beyond that, I don't think many legitimate users will be affected, but
>>>>>> there really is no other answer to the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> There are lots of other answers to the problem. Some have been listed
>>>>> right here. And none of them involve blocking a whole range of IP
>>>>> addresses.
>>>> Well, these are all just server farms, where people place web servers, so
>>>> the only humans using the machines, other than people browsing the web
>>>> sites, would be the individual web site admins, so other than maybe
>>>> somoene trying to use a Web proxy from work to hide what they are
>>>> doing from the boss, I don't think I would be impacting that many users.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, blocking all traffic from those three data centers has cut
>>>> the problem of people posting **** links down to almost nothing. I
>>>> get maybe a handful a day, but not the dozens a day I was getting.
>>>> I don't think I will see anymore from folks like SuperXXX****
>>>> or BestinWeb. I got them stopped dead in their tracks.
>>>>
>>>> If you are running any servers hosted at the datacenters of Inhoster,
>>>> Keymachine, or FDC servers, you better check and see that
>>>> your servers have not been compromised by these people that
>>>> are doing this. 99.9 percent of the traffic that was posting ****
>>>> links were coming from compromised machines at these data
>>>> centers. And there is no POSSIBLE way I could have
>>>> discovered this without using a main page translated to HTML
>>>> and having all the traffic logged with StatCounter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Apache logs much?
>>>
>>> There are plenty of good utilities to view these logs: analog, awstats and
>>> webalizer just to name a few.
>>
>>
>> Ah, but with StatCounter, I get much more detailed information. I can find
>> out what
>> search engines they linked on, what keywords were used, I also get
>> information on
>> what browser, operating system, and even what screen resolution was used.
>> None
>> of the products you mentioned can do that.
>>
>>
>
>Read up about them before you state what they can and can't do.
>StatCounter and all those other online solutions are seriously flawed.
>
>Here are the cons of StatCounter:
> - Commercial Software
> - Relies on JavaScript
> - Can only track files that JavaScript is embedded in
> - Your information is kept with a Third Party
>
>Awstats does everything statcounter can do as far as I know.

What's with your fear of javascript (do note the lack of capitals)?

I mean:


By all indications having javascript and having it enabled is pretty
much the norm. In fact I'd be willing to bet that most of that 6%
figure is from bots that are spidering page content.

And it certainly is not unreasonable to expect visitors to have
javascript and to have it enabled if it means being able to offer a
more design rich environment, especially if that environment has been
specifically designed to enhance page content.

To always try and cater to the lowest common denominator (that 6%) is
VERY foolish, especially in business where you want to push most of
your resources into things that will have the LARGEST positive impact
on your business (getting the most bang for your buck). Generally the
ONLY people who are against the practice are those who are foolish
enough to disable javascript and somehow think that the rest of the
world should have to cater to THEIR personal preferences. But when it
comes right down to it, which is more important...trying to entice 6
people to come and buy something from your store...or trying to entice
NINETY FOUR people to come and buy something from your store.

The only time in which that logic doesn't hold true is in the RARE
exception of perhaps having a site that sells brail screen readers to
the blind, in which case you are marketing a product that is only
useful to the lowest common denominator.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹




Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally ***** slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty ****ing high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

eclipsme

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
<snip>
> To always try and cater to the lowest common denominator (that 6%) is
> VERY foolish, especially in business where you want to push most of
> your resources into things that will have the LARGEST positive impact
> on your business (getting the most bang for your buck). Generally the
> ONLY people who are against the practice are those who are foolish
> enough to disable javascript and somehow think that the rest of the
> world should have to cater to THEIR personal preferences. But when it
> comes right down to it, which is more important...trying to entice 6
> people to come and buy something from your store...or trying to entice
> NINETY FOUR people to come and buy something from your store.

If I can entice the 6% without loosing the 94% - well, that is the way I
would want to go.

Harvey