Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Three UA's

in five seconds

         

wilderness

5:25 am on Jul 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



bad omen of possibilites to follow

209.237.****.xxx

volatilegx

5:41 am on Jul 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



what were the UAs?

wilderness

12:24 pm on Jul 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"

"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040726 Firefox/0.9"

Only two.

bull

2:13 pm on Jul 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Alexa. This is really, really bad style.
Was here 21/06.

wilderness

5:28 pm on Jul 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I'm not sure that is same Alexa you think it is Bull.
Seems to me I recall this being an ISP whose prefence is co-loaction.

wilderness

6:56 pm on Jul 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I shouldn't known better and trsuted your insight Bull :(

Went back through some old threads and one in the same.

They didn't visit my large site rather a smaller one. Also this particular sub-folder (NOT sub-domain) has its own htaccess, without a robots.txt. This sub-folder has listing with many pages, inlcuding all the DMOZ mirrors. It still doesn't explain Alexa's avoiding robots.txt. Or even identifying themselves.

My previous mention of the the co-loction is the backbone provider. United something another.

In any event, I've readded Alexa to my deny's until they resume use of a UA and reading and honoring robots.txt.