 | | Re: eBay nailed? —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Well, assuming the theory works, yes, you could say no more than 10 calls per second or something, but perhaps a better approach would be to make it smarter-- if someone makes 10 calls per second or something, their IP gets put on a "watch (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: eBay nailed? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) Well, it could be handled on a very gross basis by the router/firewall. If it keeps track of the top IP sources of packets, it can just start discarding packets from certain IP addresses. It could also recognize large company firewalls to (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: eBay nailed? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Yep, that sounds like exactly what I'd want to do-- keep tabs on who's sending the most requests and if they look suspicious, deny them access, rather than have a flat "no more than X transactions per Y time", seeing as how you might get (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: eBay nailed? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Charging per packet, and blocking packets both sound good in practice, and I support them in theory. They are problematic though, the way the internet is currrently engineered. Packet headers are too easy to spoof. The internet is built on the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: eBay nailed? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) I don't think your random clicks will be a problem when time comes to charge per packet. I expect that the rates will be so miniscule that casual browsing will be free (the problem might be that it won't do enough to spam because it won't cost (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
