mboverload wrote:
On 7/27/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@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.