Hello,
The squid statistics report show us that some site are leaking our
bandwidth. How to tell? They have a huge number of images referral and
barely none for pages.
One example:
In December, channelsurfing.net has been seen as a referrer for:
- 1000 pages roughly
- 1 740 000 images
On 21 January 2011 22:49, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Given the cost in bandwidth, hard drives, CPU, architecture ... I do
think we should find a solution to block thoses sites as much as
possible. Would it be possible at the squid level?
Given we actively endorse hotlinking
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
The squid statistics report show us that some site are leaking our
bandwidth. How to tell? They have a huge number of images referral and
barely none for pages.
One example:
In December, channelsurfing.net has been seen as a referrer for:
- 1000 pages roughly
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:02 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You're talking about hotlinking, right? Looking at the page source of
channelsurfing.net, they're clearly hotlinking quite a bit. But as David
notes, we generally encourage our content to be spread and used.
I particularly
On 21 January 2011 23:31, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
If they're linking to images we legitimately host and which meet our
image guidelines, are used in WP or other WMF projects, etc, then ...
Shrug. I didn't realize we were ok with hotlinking like that, but if
that's the
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 January 2011 23:31, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
If they're linking to images we legitimately host and which meet our
image guidelines, are used in WP or other WMF projects, etc, then ...
Shrug. I
