27 Jun, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 42nd comment:
David Haley said:
I think it's there only because it's always been there, and people have gotten used to seeing it. :shrug: Not trying to be facetious.
I have trouble imagining why it would be useful unless you're trying to debug something fairly specific. (e.g., are people even able to ping my port, before failing to log on)
Cratylus said:
I guess what I'm saying is…aside from Davion's fanciful imagining of anyone
ever having to make any effort to prove him wrong, what advantage is there
to logging things going bump in the night against your login port?
ever having to make any effort to prove him wrong, what advantage is there
to logging things going bump in the night against your login port?
I think it's there only because it's always been there, and people have gotten used to seeing it. :shrug: Not trying to be facetious.
I have trouble imagining why it would be useful unless you're trying to debug something fairly specific. (e.g., are people even able to ping my port, before failing to log on)
Hades_Kane said:
On the IP logging, I find it useful to be able to see the initial connection attempts for at least a few reasons. Off of the top of my head, sometimes I recognize the IP of someone connecting I don't want to deal with, and its easier to go wizi in the time from their initial connection and presence within the game than it is from the moment they actually log in. I find it useful to know whether someone is attempting to spam the MUD with continued connections, I find it useful to have that in place when a banned IP or player attempts to connect…
I have to agree with HK here. There are a lot of useful reasons for being able to see the process of someone attempting to connect (even more than the ones HK already mentioned). Still, I don't find this whole ordeal over the connection frequencies of MSSP crawlers to be an issue. Seeing one connection every couple minutes (and that being when there was a bug) is no big deal. If I absolutely could not stand it anyway, I'd just filter that single IP from logging. If it actually did devolve into something constituting a DoS, I'd block it. These are rare enough occurrences that dealing with them on a case by case basis won't significantly increase administrative workload. I very much agree with the "public port on the internet" philosophy that has been espoused throughout this debate, and I think certain people are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing at this point.
27 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 43rd comment:
David Haley said:
And for the love of everything, can we please drop the DoS stuff or if we insist on talking about it at least move it to the another thread. (People complaining about repetition adding their own doesn't help!)
who u callin a person? :wink:
27 Jun, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 44th comment:
I thought I said in the other thread that we would at some point in the future be adding a field to the mud listings that lets you specify the frequency time?
27 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 45th comment:
Don't remember you saying that, but that seems like a good solution. Are you saying that that would be in addition or instead of an MSSP field?
27 Jun, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 46th comment:
Instead of preferrably.
28 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 47th comment:
Is there any reason you're against it? The nice thing about having it in the spec means that games can talk to all crawlers. If you're going to have it as a listing field, couldn't you just use the MSSP response to update that?
28 Jun, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 48th comment:
Cause i'm lazy
28 Jun, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 49th comment:
It honestly makes sense to have it as both a non-MSSP field, AND an MSSP field. That way if those of us who actually use MSSP decide to change the frequency we want to be crawled, we don't have to go through all the different sites that support the field. Just update our MSSP Response and be done with it.
28 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 50th comment:
50!
28 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 51st comment:
I agree that having the field really seems like the better approach. Heck I think so enough that I'd put the code into the MB crawler if Kiasyn doesn't feel like doing so himself. :wink:
BTW: 51. (It's a prime number.)
BTW: 51. (It's a prime number.)
28 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 52nd comment:
I updated my spec page at http://tintin.sourceforge.net/mssp/ with the "CRAWL DELAY" variable and notified mudstats.com of the update. I think mudstats will make use of the option sooner rather than later since they already have support to manually adjust the crawl speed.
Random Picks
Which part of the thread where we talked about exactly this did you miss…? :wink:
And for the love of everything, can we please drop the DoS stuff or if we insist on talking about it at least move it to the another thread. (People complaining about repetition adding their own doesn't help!)