Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-02 Thread Kevin Smith
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:55 AM, LongLine wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Am 01.03.2013 18:42, schrieb Kevin Smith: >> The ongoing discussions about Google having had to (temporarily?) >> impose a blanket block on sub requests has reminded me that I meant >> to post.

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-02 Thread Kevin Smith
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Marco Cirillo wrote: > Il 02/03/2013 02:08, Dave Cridland ha scritto: > > > On 1 Mar 2013 17:03, "Kevin Smith" wrote: >> This sounds very thorough (and entirely reasonable). Is your setup for >> doing this generally available so other servers could take advantage >

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-02 Thread Kevin Smith
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Marco Cirillo wrote: > Il 01/03/2013 23:03, Kevin Smith ha scritto: > >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Marco Cirillo >> wrote: >>> >>> expecially to the "high usage" ones (possibly more, >>> those with unprotected IBR)... Did you actually ever make a census of h

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Marco Cirillo
Il 02/03/2013 02:08, Dave Cridland ha scritto: On 1 Mar 2013 17:03, "Kevin Smith" > wrote: > This sounds very thorough (and entirely reasonable). Is your setup for > doing this generally available so other servers could take advantage > of similar systems? I also w

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Dave Cridland
On 1 Mar 2013 17:03, "Kevin Smith" wrote: > This sounds very thorough (and entirely reasonable). Is your setup for > doing this generally available so other servers could take advantage > of similar systems? I also wonder whether it'd be worthwhile restricting S2S traffic on new users initially;

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Marco Cirillo
Il 01/03/2013 23:03, Kevin Smith ha scritto: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Marco Cirillo wrote: expecially to the "high usage" ones (possibly more, those with unprotected IBR)... Did you actually ever make a census of how many of your concurrent users are actual human beings..? It's not imme

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Kevin Smith
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Marco Cirillo wrote: > expecially to the "high usage" ones (possibly more, > those with unprotected IBR)... Did you actually ever make a census of how > many of your concurrent users are actual human beings..? It's not immediately clear to me how one would reliably

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Marco Cirillo
Frankly as usual when there's a convo going on about spamming, public services and IBR I tend getting puzzled/amused several times in a row... But what caught my eye in a special manner was Peter's statement:

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Philipp Hancke
I mean it'd be nice for mobile or desktop clients to be able to point new users to a list of possible servers to register an account on. From infrequent mod_stats (ejabberds implementation of xep-0039) queries to several servers on the list this doesn't seem to happen often.

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/1/13 1:37 PM, Tobias Markmann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: > >> I wonder if the server list at xmpp.net is really a good idea at >> all! >> > > I think it is. Those servers having IBR (without captcha) ena

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Tobias Markmann
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I wonder if the server list at xmpp.net is really a good idea at all! > I think it is. Those servers having IBR (without captcha) enabled not. I mean it'd be nice for mobile or desktop clients to be able to point new users to a list of po

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Kevin Smith
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Peter Schwindt wrote: > Q: Kevin, are your registrations on swift.im "protected"? If so, how is > this being done? swift.im (and the other domains hanging off that server) isn't a general public server (it federates, but requires me to add accounts manually). /K

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/1/13 1:28 PM, Peter Schwindt wrote: > R: I guess this goes out to stpeter: Please remove jabber.ccc.de > from the list at xmpp.net - thanks. We don't have to make it too > easy for those spammy developers. I wonder if the server list at xmpp.net

Re: [Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Peter Schwindt
Guys, Am 01.03.13 18:42, schrieb Kevin Smith: > I've had to block all of the following servers for > having unprotected signups One question, one request, If I may: Q: Kevin, are your registrations on swift.im "protected"? If so, how is this being done? R: I guess this goes out to stpeter: Pl

[Operators] Spammy servers

2013-03-01 Thread Kevin Smith
The ongoing discussions about Google having had to (temporarily?) impose a blanket block on sub requests has reminded me that I meant to post. A few weeks ago a service I admin was attacked over S2S by flooders (MUC room attacks). As far as I can tell, the flooders had produced scripts to autoreg