Dean, That's pretty much the feeling I've been left with.  Any my experience
in trying to seek an explanation of what happened is more of the same.  What
makes it stupid is that Twitter thinks enough of Favstar to promote it in
the definitions box, but they can't be bothered explaining what actually
happened here in a way that makes sense.
http://twitter.com/timhaines/status/14957152865

Mark, I know you've since prioritized mapping IPs to apps, and thanks for
the DM this morning (oh - and the one just now).  However, it seems hard to
fathom that Twitter couldn't have resolved Favstar's IP address, and that
you couldn't have determined it was Favstar from the whitelisted account
making the requests.  Perhaps you blacklist so many IPs that you make no
attempt to identify any of them - this is the only scenario that I could
imagine that makes sense to me.

Tim.






On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Dean Collins <d...@cognation.net> wrote:

> I otherwords we're happy to screw with your time as we don't care about
> you.......
>
> I think Chris Dixon nailed it in his recent comments about Twitter.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> twitter-development-
> > t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark McBride
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 May 2010 4:58 AM
> > To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [twitter-dev] If your IP gets blacklisted
> >
> > We're working on a project internally that will greatly reduce the
> > number of false positives on blacklisting.  Right now it's really
> > tough to match up IPs and applications, and therefore difficult to
> > figure out who we would contact about blacklisting.  Once our internal
> > project is complete we should have a pretty easy way to match IPs with
> > apps, which should in turn allow us to be better about
> > warning/notification when we do blacklist IPs.
> >
> > The troubleshooting steps you listed here are good ones in the meantime.
> >
> >    ---Mark
> >
> > http://twitter.com/mccv
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Tim Haines <tmhai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > > Wanted to share a few details about last nights experience in case
> anyone
> > > else gets hit with it.  Hopefully it can save you a few hours
> > > troubleshooting if it happens to you.
> > > Favstar's IP address was blacklisted by twitter yesterday.  When this
> > > occurs, they don't inform you of it.
> > > Instead, you start seeing percentage of your requests blocked.  Not all
> of
> > > them, just some of them.  For me it varied between the 50% and 80%
> range.
> > >  In the way I do my logging, these appeared as timeouts, so at first I
> > > thought the API was suffering overload, and when @mccv told me there
> was no
> > > overload, I fell in to trap of trying to diagnose either what was wrong
> with
> > > my server, or what was wrong with the network in between.
> > > What I should have done, is ran a curl in verbose mode (-v).  This
> tells you
> > > that your connections are being refused:
> > > ~/current: curl  -i -u
> > >  my_account:fuuu!
> http://api.twitter.com/1/account/rate_limit_status.json -v
> > > * About to connect() to api.twitter.com port 80 (#0)
> > > *   Trying 128.242.240.157... Connection refused
> > > *   Trying 168.143.161.29... Connection refused
> > > *   Trying 168.143.162.45... Connection refused
> > > *   Trying 128.121.146.109... connected   <snip correct/incorrect
> response>
> > > When I tried this from another server, my connections were never
> refused.
> > >  When I tried this from the blacklisted server, I would see something
> like
> > > the above.  Sometimes I'd get a successful response, sometimes I'd get
> > > "curl: (52) Empty reply from server" which googling for is useless, and
> > > sometimes I'd get "curl: (7) couldn't connect to host".
> > > If you'd like to see Twitter make a reasonable attempt to notify 3rd
> parties
> > > when they are blacklisted, please vote on this
> > > issue: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/detail?id=1658
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tim.
> > >
>

Reply via email to