Re: [edict-jmdict] Website worriers

["Zarlan ." <zarlan@********>]

I don't particularly want to talk about this issue, as I don't know anything about these things, however...
Whilst blocking/banning people who do problematic things, like downloading 
JMdict, entry by entry, and such problematic DDoS-like behaviour is fine (indeed necessary), I don't agree with the notion that people blocked/banned and/or not be seen as a real user, just because they have a 9+ year old browser.

There are a lot of people, who use older versions of software.
They shouldn't be penalized or banned.
I remember when "newer version", meant "better version"...
Those days are long gone.

/Alan

<-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->

From: Darren Cook darren@********* [edict-jmdict] [edict-jmdict@***************] Sent: 7/11/2019 9:12:55 AM To: edict-jmdict@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [edict-jmdict] Website worriers    > address and resume. The current culprit is at 85.203.22.34 and > has sent in about 2,000 in the last hour. The log shows an odd client > identifier ending in "Gecko/20041107 Firefox/x.x". That same > pattern is on all the requests I've been blocking, The "20041107" bit looks reasonable as a filter. You could probably even filter "Gecko/200" and not lose any real users? It'd be someone using a 9+ year old browser. Darren