25 Jun, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
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
25 Jun, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Perhaps a Let's Keep Things In Proportion protocol.

-Crat
25 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, wrkq wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
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.
25 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
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.

You're talking to people who can't give you what you want. Just wait for a few seconds maybe, and give MB time to get this happening. Or wait for them to tell you why they won't do it. And then complain appropriately. Now, you're just being incredibly impatient, making this sound like the world is about to collapse.

Mabus said:
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.

We're giving you our opinion on how to avoid this problem because we can't solve the root of it for you in the past five seconds.

Mabus said:
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.

Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
Maybe you can try to resolve this amiably, though, in a longer delay than, oh, a few minutes.
25 Jun, 2009, Zeno wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
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.

Well that's not a dickish move at all.
25 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
wrkq said:
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.


There's clearly something seriously wrong with the design of the crawler of it is spamming MUDs.

This isn't an issue with his MUD, my MUD, or anyone else's MUD, this is an issue of the crawler.

The entire point of all of the discussion about MSSP is to help promote a widespread adoption of it, correct? Is spamming MUDs and people borderline flaming people who want no part of it a really good way to try to convince people this is a system worth adopting?
25 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Probably because he's been being hammered, almost attacked (at least talked down to) over a simple and quite reasonable request.

Words that come to mind when I read this are along the lines of "utterly ridiculous", "preposterous", and a few others that I won't print here. I think everybody has said that an opt-out option sounds completely fine. You guys are turning something that people agreed on into some massive crap-flinging argument. Tempests in teapots and all that. Sheesh.
25 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
Quote
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.

Well that's not a dickish move at all.


Considering the only responses he has received is "Well, deal with it, this is how things are" and people acting as though they are speaking for the people responsible for it, I don't blame him for his response at all.

DavidHaley is particularly jumping on him for this point. He posted a request, he's been told in so many words that its HIS problem to deal with it, what reason does he have to respond any other way? Rather than responding in the way everyone has, I think a more sensible approach would be to wait for someone who actually has some say in the issue to come about to work with him on the issue rather than jumping down his throat.
25 Jun, 2009, wrkq wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Excuse me, what's the difference between this and "OMG GOOGLE IS CRAWLING MY WEBSITE!!!!"?
grep -v Googlebot /var/log/lighttpd/access.log
grep -vi mssp /werever/logins/are/logged

Same thing.
25 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Considering the only responses he has received is "Well, deal with it, this is how things are" and people acting as though they are speaking for the people responsible for it, I don't blame him for his response at all.

DavidHaley is particularly jumping on him for this point. He posted a request, he's been told in so many words that its HIS problem to deal with it, what reason does he have to respond any other way? Rather than responding in the way everyone has, I think a more sensible approach would be to wait for someone who actually has some say in the issue to come about to work with him on the issue rather than jumping down his throat.

Are we reading the same thread? It sure doesn't sound like it… I mean, I told him that opt-out sounded like a fine idea.

Please read the thread slowly and carefully before saying things like that, ok?

EDIT:
Quote
I think a more sensible approach would be to wait for someone who actually has some say in the issue to come about to work with him

Yeah, maybe we could do that too, before throwing around threats of calling cops etc.
25 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
HK said:
I'm actually surprised as to the number of "well, deal with it" responses Mabus has received


In my opinion, that particular crawler is probably broken. I'd like to know who coded
it, so they can receive the appropriate retribution for spamming: mockery and derision.

Because I think it's a broken crawler, I think that talk of modifying the protocol
is silly and moot. A crawler that cares about not being a dick wouldn't spam like
this, a crawler that does not care about being a dick wouldn't care if it follows
a politeness rule.

Since eventually there will be more than a few crawlers/clients, it is hoped, and it
can be reasonably expected some will be broken or run by dicks, handling this
spam, if you log at this level, is something that's going to be "up to you" anyway.


Mabus said:
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.


Dude.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
25 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm sorry. Contact the authorities over a ding every 2 minutes? Now we're getting silly.
25 Jun, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Drama Llamas, one and all.

No one here can do anything about the Crawler. Davion's probably sleeping after working all night, Kiasyn's probably at work, Samson's not usually around until the evening. And Asylumius.. Uh.. shows up randomly.

After reading this for myself, and getting a laugh out of all of it because of all the Drama Llama'ing going on. I have to say. No one here's being attacked. THe fact that your seeing these as attacks is funny in itself.

Mabus, yeah, the spam is annoying. But yes, you are on the internet, and you are running an open port to which anyone can connect. You are going to have to come up with some kind of log filtering for this kind of thing. It's the nature of the beast. I'm not saying the crawler should be connecting as often as it is, because honestly, it shouldn't be. An attempt to connect once a day works fine for the crawlers Marlin@Azereth and Scandum are running. But again, no one with any power to modify the bot is available. So making threats of turning this over to the ISP is pointless. Also a connection attempt every one to two minutes doesn't constitute a DOS, there's enough time between for the service to resume normal operations. A DOS would have to be a constant hammering with no delay between attempts.

No MUD admin should have to write code they don't want to, but at the same time, log filtering can have a lot more benefits then just not filling your logs with connection spam. Like HK has stated, it can be used to make it easier to find things in your logs of a particular type. You could even go one step further and filter all the different types of log messages into their own little files, so that you have all your build spam in one area, all your connection stuff in another, and all other things in a separate file.

Cratylus said:
I'd like to know who coded it, so they can receive the appropriate retribution for spamming: mockery and derision.

I believe Kiasyn wrote it originally, and Davion has been working with it lately trying to get it integrated into the MUD Listings. Well, assuming that it's the actual MUDBytes Crawler doing this.

But seriously, this has all been blown so far out of proportion that it's going to quickly beat out Lyanic's Drama thread.
20.0/136