Oh, I was under the impression that they just enabled XFF (which I don't
understand) and that was that.
On 7/28/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote:
mboverload wrote:
On 7/27/06, Ilmari Karonen
<nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote:
We still seem to be getting edits from some AOL proxies, at least in the
195.93.21.*, 152.163.100.* and 207.200.116.* ranges. Maybe some of the
proxies are still not providing the headers, or perhaps they're missing
from our trusted XFF list?
Given that the XFF setup doesn't seem to work perfectly, the question
remains whether we should apply anon-only range blocks to those proxies.
If you look at my history of me and AOL users...I think AOL is a
shithole
that should be banned from accessing any
website.
However, it's much easier to ban an IP address for vandalism than a
username. People get bitchy. No one cares about blocking IP users, and
I
want to keep it that way for ease of blocking.
...
Except this is AOL: for all practical purposes, AOL proxy IPs *can't* be
effectively blocked, not unless you block the entire range. And if you
don't make the block anon-only, you get heavy collateral damage, which
*does* cause serious bitching; we've just gotten so used to it we don't
really notice the constant complaints any more.
To repeat my argument earlier in this thread, an anon-only range block
of the AOL proxies would actually reduce the annoyance, since it would
override autoblocks, allowing registered users to edit without being hit
by them. And, of course, once the XFF setup starts working fully, the
range blocks will cease to have any effect.
--
Ilmari Karonen
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l