server1.business2www.com b2w/0.1

[Brett_Tabke]

b2w/0.1
212.100.226.110
server1.business2www.com

6000+ requests in under an hour. Sometimes as high as 10 requests per second. Just about knocked WebmasterWorld offline.

Then followed up with a pitch email informing me of 93,000 errors after we banned their server.

[Dreamquick]

I saw these guys before *but* just the once (I'm oddly thankful that the first page they requested died horribly given your experience), given what they do I find it very odd that they don't make a better attempt to contact the admin of the site they are scanning - especially if they are going to spider the entire site!

The same applies to any of these services, whether its something as questionable as these b2w guys or as irritating as the internetseer type services.

While I must acknowledge that by having a site I agree to make it public *but* if you offer a service which could potentially offer competitors information about my site and server which they wouldn't ordinarily have, or plan to just generally whack my site with great force without my permission then they should ensure that they are only supplying that information/allowing the service to the correct people associated with that site.

Anyone care to comment?

- Tony

[carfac]

Brett:

Thanks for the heads up... what was the whole UA?

Dreamquick:

While I must acknowledge that by having a site I agree to make it public

I do not agree... I think you CAN decide to make it public, but just by virtue of it being on the web does not make it public (or public domain!). The website is still your property... and I liken it to your house. You can decide who to let in... and who not to. Some webmasters have decided that if you (the visitor) are not "polite" enough to leave a UA, you don't get it... or whatever. That is your choice. Not to mention password-protected areas!

So, no, I do not agree at all that a web site (by virtue of being on the web) is neccissarily public... and I further think we as webmasters have total right to decide who can have access!

just ny 2 cents

dave

[mack]

I think things like this cals for the "Open Htaccess Project" anyone can download the file and anyone can contribute to the file.

[Dreamquick]

carfac;

The whole UA was "b2w/0.1" but you figure out who they are by tracing back who owns the IP / whats on the ip they came from.

I didn't quite mean public in that sense all I meant was;

I put the site up there and so its reasonable to expect people to access it if that is the purpose of the site, if I don't like that then I can do something about it or I can just take the site down and go home.

Equally its not entirely unexpected if/when businesses try this sort of thing since its a source of revenue, equally its not unexpected if once I figure out who they are and what they are doing I lock them out with the most appropriate method (for some thats robots.txt, for others that means a 403).

Really I was just wondering out loud if they should exercise more a cautious approach in who they run profiles for.

- Tony

[carfac]

Tony:

Oh, that makes sense. I was not trying to be argumenative, (well, yes I was!), I was just trying to discuss!

The thing is, I have been thinking about this a lot recently, you know, should I cut people out, and who... and all that, and I guess I just wanted to pop off a bit on what I had been thinking about!

Anyway, thanks for the clarification on the UA, I was unsure if it was the b2w/0.1 or the server1.business2www.com, or both!

Regarding an open .htaccess project, I have been working with someone else on this board toward a "perfect" block list... and I do not think that is possible. Even with just the two of us, we have different goals. The other person (I do not want to mention names, this person can post if they wish!) is a lot more motivated to stop e-mail harvesters, and I want to get off-line browsers more. So each of us goes a little bit more into that area...

Sure, this sounds good for variety in a list.... but I also am a little less forgiving than an average webmaster might be... I will ban accelorators and such, and maybe that is too far for the average webmaster. I mean, someone can come up with a reason to ban just about any UA

I am all for open discussions of what to ban, and why... but I think the "ultimate" list will end up being very personal.

dave

[toadhall]

This UA showed up in my stats for the site in my user profile at 1:50 am PST today. That site's not indexed, so must've leaked through WebmasterWorld.
The outfit in question is in Staffordshire; offer site valifdation service called SiteMorse and right now they're offering a free trial. So, it might not be business2www that's initiating the hits.

[Dreamquick]

It's going to be one of three reasons;

1) Viral marketing
2) Someone else using it against you
3) You requesting it but forgetting about it

I'd say viral marketing is the most likely

- Tony

[drojon]

>The outfit in question is in Staffordshire; offer site >valifdation service called SiteMorse and right now they're >offering a free trial. So, it might not be business2www that's >initiating the hits.

Sitemorse *is* a service run by business2www.com, according to www.business2www.com website - so SiteMorse = business2www.com

I assume that before they give someone a free trial, they check that the person is authorised or an owner of the site to be tested...