Lukas Fleischer wrote: >> Do the IPs need to be visible? In the case of a single IP a simple ban button >> will suffice. A proxied IP will be completely different every time so >> subsequent addresses are unrelated. That only leaves netmasked dynamic IPs. >> It >> would be enough to have an interface button connected to a query that returns >> all users with an IP in the netmasked range (/24?). You could even >> automatically flag user accounts that share a range with banned IPs, again >> without divulging the IP address. > >This is not the whole truth. To stop the latest spam attack, we had a >look at the web server logs, noticed that the spammer was using Tor, >generated a list of Tor exit nodes and added that to the IP ban list. >How would you do that without seeing any IP addresses? How would you >figure out if a spammer is just controlling 4-5 small subnets or using >proxies at all?
Fair enough. Incidentally, can a banned IP address still be used to browse the site and download packages? There are many people who use Tor and other proxies for various reasons and it would be a shame if they have to suffer due to one basement-dwelling troll. Essentially only the login and post forms would need to respect the ban. Sorry if this has been addressed already. I haven't read through the patches. >If you feel strongly about not showing IP addresses, we could hide IP >addresses for TUs and only show them to the AUR administrator(s) who can >skim through the logs anyway. Please do. Thanks. >Yes, they can. I did not mean to allege anything here -- I just wanted >to make sure that banning a range of IP addresses doesn't >(unintentionally) block any Trusted Users or developers. That would make for a great post in the stupid computer mistakes thread... it would be on the same level as ssh'ing into a box and killing the network.
