63.148.99.247

[palmpal]

Is this a good bot to have visit?

Thanks!

[Stefan]

I just saw today in the logs that 63.148.99.247 had hit all 48 pages of my site at 3 second intervals. It seemed odd so I did a reverse DNS, found Cyveillance, searched on Google, didn't like what I read about it, so I did a search here.

I don't want this thing on my site. It's using my bandwidth with no return to me and if it's cruising for copyright violations, of which I have none, then it can stuff it's corporate clients where the sun never shines.

I'm hoping for some specific html code to ban that IP#. I've never put up a robot.txt file since the site went up, Sept 2002, because I wanted all the spiders I could get. It's PR6 now.

Any chance of some nice clean html code that will ban 63.148.99.247? (I searched a bit here and couldn't find specifics). It would be much appreciated.

[wilderness]

Stefan,
No html that I'm aware of bans/denies IP's.
Robots suggests.
htaccess denies.

[marcs]

If any of you are still wondering if the IP belongs to
Qwest or Cyveillance, the answer is both. Sort of.

Simply look it up in the arin database :

whois [e-mail]
[whois.arin.net]
Qwest Communications NET-QWEST-BLKS-2 (NET-63-144-0-0-1)
63.144.0.0 - 63.151.255.255
Cyveillance QWEST-63-148-99-224 (NET-63-148-99-224-1)
63.148.99.224 - 63.148.99.255

So yes, it is a Qwest IP block, but the subblock in question
is indeed owned/used by Cyveillance.

[Stefan]

Ok, thanks Wilderness. I'll do some reading up and try to figure out what to do about it.

Yeah Marcs, that's exactly what I found after I saw the IP# in the logs without a bot indentifier and no attempt to get a robots file.

[JuniorHarris]

Here is a novel idea:

Create a bot which is advertised as one that searches for duplicated/pirated content....then actually use that bot to jack code from these unsuspecting sites.

Good bad or indifferent....it should be banned. Save your bandwidth for a real engine which might potentially send users.

[mgream]

If organisations like nameprotect and cyveillance were smart, they would act in a tier-2 role and fetch their content from google/etc (tier-1). This is in fact a way that the industry can develop because google is in a strong position to be the default search engine, so just about everybody wants their content in google, so virtually no-one blocks access to google. What google then need to do is sell access to their cache and indexing systems for tier-2 parties, so then end websites will never know that they are being 'mined' for content. Of course, if you weren't happy with this concept, you could just prevent google from indexing you, but who would want that? You could introduce stronger TOS to ensure that tier-1 parties who take your content can't make it available to others under certain conditions, but the level of sophistication in web IPR is not yet there. Lets see how it evolves.

[weesnich]

I think we need a more complex standard for robots.txt

The old approach of banning/unbanning bots by name cant handle the everincreasing number of new spiders. We simply need a standard to ban bots on purpose.

Like: Only allowed for free public searchengines not selling collected information to third partys.
Or: Free for educartional use etc.

Perhaps webmasters may even have a case based on copyright to enforce their TOS against professional collectors and resellers of information. But first we need something to communicate our TOS to bots.

[mgream]

I agree. The W3C P3P mechanism is a good example of a mature approach to more contractual style arrangement and discrimination of content. There are also a number of rights management initiatives. How these will found it is not yet clear.

[thermoman]

Hi,

63.148.99.247 is listed as Spamharvester on [kloth.net...]

greetings from germany,
Marcel.