>> and (2) what's the list's opinion on whether [border blocking >> excessive-query-rate hosts] is a reasonable thing to do on a pool >> server, and, if so, on my choice of trip point? > If you can afford the traffic, let them do that. Most likely, nobody > is really maintaining these clients, and some programmer thought that > it was a good idea query for the time every 7200 (not being aware > that the respective unit was ms, not s).
Another possibility occurs to me, based mostly on watching traffic in real time: that the IP is actually a NAT address and there are multiple clients behind it. A few of the IPs I've snooped traffic from produce bursty repeating traffic - idle for tens of seconds then some three or four queries within a few seconds is the sort of pattern I'm talking about. This is another reason I set the automated blocking bar as high as I did, in an attempt to avoid blocking NAT front-ends when they have only a few clients behind them, or many clients that are well-designed enough to have ratcheted back to a long poll interval. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
