It looks like the company hosting RubyOnRails.com (TextDrive, now Joyent) is blocking all URLs that contain the term "site5.com" anywhere in the URL with a misleading error message (Precondition Failed). Competition is healthy, and we encourage it, but if it is their intention to do this sort of thing they should be open and honest with their customers, and the community about it. This does not appear to be limited to just the rails site either. One of our contractors is a paying TextDrive customer (http:// www.mattmccray.com/) and any link containing Site5.com that goes to his site results in a similar error message. Case in point: http://www.adamgreenfield.com/test.html http://www.adamgreenfield.com/site5.com/test.html Examples (don''t work): http://forums.site5.com/showthread.php?t=6758 http://engineering.site5.com/ http://fs.site5.com/~agreenfield/test.html Examples (work) http://www.adamgreenfield.com/articles/2005/12/13/rails-hits-1-0 At any rate, if TextDrive doesn''t want to play fair with competing hosting companies, then we would be happy to extend the following offer to the rails project. We will offer a dedicated machine (with the operating system of your choice) for the hosting needs of the rails project: 2 x 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon EMT64 / 64 bit 4 GB DDR ECC Registered RAM 2 x 200 GB SATA 7200 RPM 8 MB cache disks 100 mbit/s uplink 1 TB data transfer (if you need more, just let us know and it shouldn''t be a problem) More hosting companies offering rails based solutions is a good thing for the technology as a whole. Competition in this market will only result in the best possible situation for the consumer. If TextDrive wishes to take anti-competitive actions like this, it is my sincere hope that Rails will take their hosting elsewhere, even if elsewhere is not with us. -- Adam C. Greenfield Chief Technology Officer Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
It looks like the company hosting RubyOnRails.com (TextDrive, now Joyent) is blocking all URLs that contain the term "site5.com" anywhere in the URL with a misleading error message (Precondition Failed). Competition is healthy, and we encourage it, but if it is their intention to do this sort of thing they should be open and honest with their customers, and the community about it. This does not appear to be limited to just the rails site either. One of our contractors is a paying TextDrive customer (http:// www.mattmccray.com/) and any link containing Site5.com that goes to his site results in a similar error message. Case in point: http://www.adamgreenfield.com/test.html http://www.adamgreenfield.com/site5.com/test.html Examples (don''t work): http://forums.site5.com/showthread.php?t=6758 http://engineering.site5.com/ http://fs.site5.com/~agreenfield/test.html Examples (work) http://www.adamgreenfield.com/articles/2005/12/13/rails-hits-1-0 At any rate, if TextDrive doesn''t want to play fair with competing hosting companies, then we would be happy to extend the following offer to the rails project. We will offer a dedicated machine (with the operating system of your choice) for the hosting needs of the rails project: 2 x 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon EMT64 / 64 bit 4 GB DDR ECC Registered RAM 2 x 200 GB SATA 7200 RPM 8 MB cache disks 100 mbit/s uplink 1 TB data transfer (if you need more, just let us know and it shouldn''t be a problem) More hosting companies offering rails based solutions is a good thing for the technology as a whole. Competition in this market will only result in the best possible situation for the consumer. If TextDrive wishes to take anti-competitive actions like this, it is my sincere hope that Rails will take their hosting elsewhere, even if elsewhere is not with us. -- Adam C. Greenfield Chief Technology Officer Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
> It looks like the company hosting RubyOnRails.com (TextDrive, now > Joyent) is blocking all URLs that contain the term "site5.com" > anywhere in the URL with a misleading error message (Precondition > Failed).Adam, I had a quick look in our support system and I can''t see any mention of this. Did you try contacting support-xKtDo/uLHBtl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org or Dan the rails sysadmin? 412 precondition failed indicates that those requests have fallen foul of mod_security which we use to stop the millions of random referrer spam / comment spam requests which get sent . I''ve contacted our systems administrators and we''ve found the rule in question and removed it from wrath. We''ll make sure it''s not We have several automated processes which mine our logs for common referrers which look ''spammy'', occasionally these get overly agressive pulling in legitimate referrers or post body patterns. I assume that''s what has happened here. We also like competition, and I can assure you that this blocking was not intentional. -- Cheers Michael Koziarski koz-xKtDo/uLHBtl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org michael-om4Kh3VVhE6tG0bUXCXiUA@public.gmane.org
On Dec 13, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:> I''ve contacted our > systems administrators and we''ve found the rule in question and > removed it from wrath. We''ll make sure it''s not > > We have several automated processes which mine our logs for common > referrers which look ''spammy'', occasionally these get overly agressive > pulling in legitimate referrers or post body patterns. I assume > that''s what has happened here. > > We also like competition, and I can assure you that this blocking was > not intentional. >May I inquire as to specifically what the rule was? .*site5\.com.* ? Also, could one of your administrators do some research and let me know how it got there? (Obviously, if this is an automated system, we would not want to have the same thing occur in the future) -- Adam C. Greenfield Chief Technology Officer Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Woow, this is really serious, I was almost going to host one of my first rails projects on textdrive. Have you contacted TextDrive about this? I can''t really belive there could be any explaination... No clients of mine will be going to textdrive... Adam C. Greenfield wrote:> It looks like the company hosting RubyOnRails.com (TextDrive, now > Joyent) is blocking all URLs that contain the term "site5.com" > anywhere in the URL with a misleading error message (Precondition > Failed). Competition is healthy, and we encourage it, but if it is > their intention to do this sort of thing they should be open and > honest with their customers, and the community about it. This does > not appear to be limited to just the rails site either. One of our > contractors is a paying TextDrive customer (http:// > www.mattmccray.com/) and any link containing Site5.com that goes to > his site results in a similar error message. > > Case in point: > http://www.adamgreenfield.com/test.html > http://www.adamgreenfield.com/site5.com/test.html > > > Examples (don''t work): > http://forums.site5.com/showthread.php?t=6758 > http://engineering.site5.com/ > http://fs.site5.com/~agreenfield/test.html > > > Examples (work) > http://www.adamgreenfield.com/articles/2005/12/13/rails-hits-1-0 > > At any rate, if TextDrive doesn''t want to play fair with competing > hosting companies, then we would be happy to extend the following > offer to the rails project. We will offer a dedicated machine (with > the operating system of your choice) for the hosting needs of the > rails project: > > 2 x 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon EMT64 / 64 bit > 4 GB DDR ECC Registered RAM > 2 x 200 GB SATA 7200 RPM 8 MB cache disks > 100 mbit/s uplink > 1 TB data transfer (if you need more, just let us know and it > shouldn''t be a problem) > > More hosting companies offering rails based solutions is a good thing > for the technology as a whole. Competition in this market will only > result in the best possible situation for the consumer. If TextDrive > wishes to take anti-competitive actions like this, it is my sincere > hope that Rails will take their hosting elsewhere, even if elsewhere > is not with us. > > -- > Adam C. Greenfield > Chief Technology Officer > Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. > Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 > E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
I would REALLY like to know more about this, because I have a lot of friend active as linux administrators (working at a large hosting company''). And they can''t even imagine having a automated proces that could block hosts referrers? Are you crazy, hosting a application and having a ''automated proces'' that blocks clients because they originate from a certain host? Whats next? blocking requests with no referers? Adam C. Greenfield wrote:> > On Dec 13, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote: > >> I''ve contacted our >> systems administrators and we''ve found the rule in question and >> removed it from wrath. We''ll make sure it''s not >> >> We have several automated processes which mine our logs for common >> referrers which look ''spammy'', occasionally these get overly agressive >> pulling in legitimate referrers or post body patterns. I assume >> that''s what has happened here. >> >> We also like competition, and I can assure you that this blocking was >> not intentional. >> > > May I inquire as to specifically what the rule was? .*site5\.com.* ? > > Also, could one of your administrators do some research and let me > know how it got there? (Obviously, if this is an automated system, we > would not want to have the same thing occur in the future) > > -- > Adam C. Greenfield > Chief Technology Officer > Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. > Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 > E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Call me cynical, but your friends wouldn''t happen to work at site5? ;-) (.. and no, I have no affiliation with anyone) - John On 14/12/2005, at 2:05 PM, Abdur-Rahman Advany wrote:> I would REALLY like to know more about this, because I have a lot > of friend active as linux administrators (working at a large > hosting company''). And they can''t even imagine having a automated > proces that could block hosts referrers? Are you crazy, hosting a > application and having a ''automated proces'' that blocks clients > because they originate from a certain host? Whats next? blocking > requests with no referers? > > Adam C. Greenfield wrote: > >> >> On Dec 13, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote: >> >>> I''ve contacted our >>> systems administrators and we''ve found the rule in question and >>> removed it from wrath. We''ll make sure it''s not >>> >>> We have several automated processes which mine our logs for common >>> referrers which look ''spammy'', occasionally these get overly >>> agressive >>> pulling in legitimate referrers or post body patterns. I assume >>> that''s what has happened here. >>> >>> We also like competition, and I can assure you that this blocking >>> was >>> not intentional. >>> >> >> May I inquire as to specifically what the rule was? .*site5\.com.* ? >> >> Also, could one of your administrators do some research and let >> me know how it got there? (Obviously, if this is an automated >> system, we would not want to have the same thing occur in the >> future) >> >> -- >> Adam C. Greenfield >> Chief Technology Officer >> Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. >> Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 >> E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-- John Meredith <jmeredith-0iPedL6B8ETQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
John, No, I live in the netherlands and they work for a dutch company doing hosting for large Service Appliction Providers. They don''t do small hosting things like textdrive/site5! If you don''t believe me checkout whois of advany.com : ) I am just really chocked, I was going to buy a 500 dollars a month package for one of my customers (they pay 1000 a month for there current java package). But once you start trusting a company for hosting needs, you are responsible, as far as your client is consirnd. I can''t imagin such childish behaviour (if they can''t explain it). I can''t imagin having a default blocking behaviour like this in place. This could cause a lot of loss (of visitors). Well, I am just shocked... John Meredith wrote:> Call me cynical, but your friends wouldn''t happen to work at site5? ;-) > > (.. and no, I have no affiliation with anyone) > > - John > > On 14/12/2005, at 2:05 PM, Abdur-Rahman Advany wrote: > >> I would REALLY like to know more about this, because I have a lot of >> friend active as linux administrators (working at a large hosting >> company''). And they can''t even imagine having a automated proces >> that could block hosts referrers? Are you crazy, hosting a >> application and having a ''automated proces'' that blocks clients >> because they originate from a certain host? Whats next? blocking >> requests with no referers? >> >> Adam C. Greenfield wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 13, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote: >>> >>>> I''ve contacted our >>>> systems administrators and we''ve found the rule in question and >>>> removed it from wrath. We''ll make sure it''s not >>>> >>>> We have several automated processes which mine our logs for common >>>> referrers which look ''spammy'', occasionally these get overly >>>> agressive >>>> pulling in legitimate referrers or post body patterns. I assume >>>> that''s what has happened here. >>>> >>>> We also like competition, and I can assure you that this blocking was >>>> not intentional. >>>> >>> >>> May I inquire as to specifically what the rule was? .*site5\.com.* ? >>> >>> Also, could one of your administrators do some research and let me >>> know how it got there? (Obviously, if this is an automated system, >>> we would not want to have the same thing occur in the future) >>> >>> -- >>> Adam C. Greenfield >>> Chief Technology Officer >>> Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. >>> Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 >>> E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rails mailing list >>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > -- > John Meredith <jmeredith-0iPedL6B8ETQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Frankly, it seems pretty obvious there wasn''t a malicious intent. Why would Textdrive want to block visitors to a site that specifically mentions Textdrive as the official hosting provider of RoR on the homepage? - Derek On 12/13/05, Abdur-Rahman Advany <rails-U5wbzIpkoVrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> John, > > No, I live in the netherlands and they work for a dutch company ding > hosting for large Service Appliction Providers. They don''t do small > hosting things like textdrive/site5! If you don''t believe me checkout > whois of advany.com : ) > > I am just really chocked, I was going to buy a 500 dollars a month > package for one of my customers (they pay 1000 a month for there current > java package). But once you start trusting a company for hosting needs, > you are responsible, as far as your client is consirnd. I can''t imagin > such childish behaviour (if they can''t explain it). I can''t imagin > having a default blocking behaviour like this in place. This could cause > a lot of loss (of visitors). > > Well, I am just shocked... > > John Meredith wrote: > > > Call me cynical, but your friends wouldn''t happen to work at site5? ;-) > > > > (.. and no, I have no affiliation with anyone) > > > > - John > > > > On 14/12/2005, at 2:05 PM, Abdur-Rahman Advany wrote: > > > >> I would REALLY like to know more about this, because I have a lot of > >> friend active as linux administrators (working at a large hosting > >> company''). And they can''t even imagine having a automated proces > >> that could block hosts referrers? Are you crazy, hosting a > >> application and having a ''automated proces'' that blocks clients > >> because they originate from a certain host? Whats next? blocking > >> requests with no referers? > >> > >> Adam C. Greenfield wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Dec 13, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote: > >>> > >>>> I''ve contacted our > >>>> systems administrators and we''ve found the rule in question and > >>>> removed it from wrath. We''ll make sure it''s not > >>>> > >>>> We have several automated processes which mine our logs for common > >>>> referrers which look ''spammy'', occasionally these get overly > >>>> agressive > >>>> pulling in legitimate referrers or post body patterns. I assume > >>>> that''s what has happened here. > >>>> > >>>> We also like competition, and I can assure you that this blocking was > >>>> not intentional. > >>>> > >>> > >>> May I inquire as to specifically what the rule was? .*site5\.com.* ? > >>> > >>> Also, could one of your administrators do some research and let me > >>> know how it got there? (Obviously, if this is an automated system, > >>> we would not want to have the same thing occur in the future) > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Adam C. Greenfield > >>> Chief Technology Officer > >>> Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. > >>> Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 > >>> E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Rails mailing list > >>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > >>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rails mailing list > >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > > > -- > > John Meredith <jmeredith-0iPedL6B8ETQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Derek Haynes HighGroove Studios - http://www.highgroove.com Atlanta, GA Keeping it Simple. 404.593.4879
You don''t get the point, why would textdrive have even a system for blocking referrers? and why would it block everything that has the url in the name? mhhh, I just can''t buy the supplied story, but they only lost me as there client unless they come up with a better story. Many other hosting companies out there but I liked textdrive as it was the official sponsor of rails. I am just happy I didn''t make a big mistake and thereby risking loosing a great client of mine.. Derek Haynes wrote:>Frankly, it seems pretty obvious there wasn''t a malicious intent. Why >would Textdrive want to block visitors to a site that specifically >mentions Textdrive as the official hosting provider of RoR on the >homepage? > >- Derek > >On 12/13/05, Abdur-Rahman Advany <rails-U5wbzIpkoVrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >>John, >> >>No, I live in the netherlands and they work for a dutch company ding >>hosting for large Service Appliction Providers. They don''t do small >>hosting things like textdrive/site5! If you don''t believe me checkout >>whois of advany.com : ) >> >>I am just really chocked, I was going to buy a 500 dollars a month >>package for one of my customers (they pay 1000 a month for there current >>java package). But once you start trusting a company for hosting needs, >>you are responsible, as far as your client is consirnd. I can''t imagin >>such childish behaviour (if they can''t explain it). I can''t imagin >>having a default blocking behaviour like this in place. This could cause >>a lot of loss (of visitors). >> >>Well, I am just shocked... >> >>John Meredith wrote: >> >> >> >>>Call me cynical, but your friends wouldn''t happen to work at site5? ;-) >>> >>>(.. and no, I have no affiliation with anyone) >>> >>> - John >>> >>>On 14/12/2005, at 2:05 PM, Abdur-Rahman Advany wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I would REALLY like to know more about this, because I have a lot of >>>>friend active as linux administrators (working at a large hosting >>>>company''). And they can''t even imagine having a automated proces >>>>that could block hosts referrers? Are you crazy, hosting a >>>>application and having a ''automated proces'' that blocks clients >>>>because they originate from a certain host? Whats next? blocking >>>>requests with no referers? >>>> >>>>Adam C. Greenfield wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Dec 13, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I''ve contacted our >>>>>>systems administrators and we''ve found the rule in question and >>>>>>removed it from wrath. We''ll make sure it''s not >>>>>> >>>>>>We have several automated processes which mine our logs for common >>>>>>referrers which look ''spammy'', occasionally these get overly >>>>>>agressive >>>>>>pulling in legitimate referrers or post body patterns. I assume >>>>>>that''s what has happened here. >>>>>> >>>>>>We also like competition, and I can assure you that this blocking was >>>>>>not intentional. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>May I inquire as to specifically what the rule was? .*site5\.com.* ? >>>>> >>>>>Also, could one of your administrators do some research and let me >>>>>know how it got there? (Obviously, if this is an automated system, >>>>>we would not want to have the same thing occur in the future) >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Adam C. Greenfield >>>>>Chief Technology Officer >>>>>Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. >>>>>Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 >>>>>E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Rails mailing list >>>>>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>>>>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Rails mailing list >>>>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>>>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>>John Meredith <jmeredith-0iPedL6B8ETQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Rails mailing list >>>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Rails mailing list >>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> >> > > >-- >Derek Haynes >HighGroove Studios - http://www.highgroove.com >Atlanta, GA >Keeping it Simple. >404.593.4879 >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >
David Heinemeier Hansson
2005-Dec-14 05:05 UTC
Re: RubyOnRails.com blocking based on referrer?
> It looks like the company hosting RubyOnRails.com (TextDrive, now > Joyent) is blocking all URLs that contain the term "site5.com"I''m disappointed that you didn''t check into the matter before blasting TextDrive for foul play. Sure, if it was a deliberate act, it would have been lame. But even if it was deliberate, it wouldn''t make any sense?! Why would someone block referrers from a site5.com site? If the intention was foul play, it should have been a text block. Like not allowing site5.com to be entered in comments or on the wiki. But referrers? That''s just making sure that potential customers who went to a site5.com site first wouldn''t get to see what TextDrive had to offer -- which seems like bad business. Maybe you can explain to me how this would have helped TextDrive. If not, I hope, nay, expect, you''ll be retracting this broadside. -- David Heinemeier Hansson http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
The people at Textdrive seem genuinely concerned and willing to correct the error, so there''s no reason to believe this was done intentionally. And as Derek mentioned, it doesn''t really make sense for them to be blocking traffic from Site5 and affiliated sites. We have many links to the Rails website throughout our various sites and applications. Blocking all of that traffic would essentially waste a large amount of free exposure, not to mention Page Rank. Besides... this is a fairly trivial issue (technically speaking). The Textdrive team seems to me to be pretty bright, and if they were going to bother doing something like this out of malice, they could probably come up with a much more devious solution. ;-) But, like I said, I genuinely believe that this was not at all intentional. No damage has been done, and the problem is being addressed quickly. I''m not sure what more we could have asked for in a response... Many thanks to the Textdrive team for their assistance, and keep up the good work--positive competition is advantageous for all parties involved! On 12/13/05, Abdur-Rahman Advany <rails-U5wbzIpkoVrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> But once you start trusting a company for hosting needs, > you are responsible, as far as your client is consirnd. I can''t imagin > such childish behaviour (if they can''t explain it). I can''t imagin > having a default blocking behaviour like this in place. This could cause > a lot of loss (of visitors). > > Well, I am just shocked...-- Best Regards, Matt Lightner CEO and Co-Founder Site5.com
On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:00 AM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:>> David, here is a copy of a message I just fired off to the rails >> list, however it looks like it got stuck in moderation somewhere? > > It''s visible on the list to me?It went threw sometime after the my original attempt to mail the list (however this could easily be explained by the recent slashdotting).> > Anyway, I''m disappointed that you didn''t check into the matter > before blasting TextDrive for foul play. Sure, if it was a > deliberate act, it would have been lame. But even if it was > deliberate, it wouldn''t make any sense?! Why would someone block > referrers from a site5.com site?I am sorry that you are disappointed. Obviously this was not my intention, and I am not sure what their motivations would have been. However I would imagine that you can see how one might assume that specifically blocking any link originating from a competeing hosting company might be seen as anti-competitive.> > If the intention was foul play, it should have been a text block. > Like not allowing site5.com to be entered in comments or on the > wiki. But referrers? That''s just making sure that potential > customers who went to a site5.com site first wouldn''t get to see > what TextDrive had to offer -- which seems like bad business. > > Maybe you can explain to me how this would have helped TextDrive. > If not, I hope you''ll consider retracting the broadside. >They have no interest in making sure that we are unable to reach their site, but their block effected all of the rails sites (including the trac, weblog, etc). We are left unable to reference any of the RoR related content on those sites for our customers. As we have made rails a central part of our offerings and obviously the ability to reference the wealth of information on the rails sites is of value to us. My two questions to Mr. Koziarski stand, if he would just let me know what was blocked specifically (i.e. .*site5\.com.*) and how it got blocked. If based on that information it is clear that is was a technical error made in good faith, I would be happy to retract my statement. -- Adam C. Greenfield Chief Technology Officer Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
On 12/13/05, David Heinemeier Hansson <david.heinemeier-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Maybe you can explain to me how this would have helped TextDrive. If > not, I hope, nay, expect, you''ll be retracting this broadside.David, As you also noted, it doesn''t appear that TextDrive had anything to gain by deliberately blocking traffic from Site5. That being said, we don''t assume to know all of their conceivable motivations. I am glad to hear that this was nothing but machine error, as anything else would have been rather questionable, as I''m sure everyone would agree. It seems that it would behoove TextDrive to investigate the configuration of their mod_security installation to ensure that other legitimate traffic sources don''t suffer this same fate. The symptoms of the issue, at least at first, seems very suspicious. I''m not sure if it would be antagonistic to the goals of the mod_security module to include a more verbose 412 error page, but, if not, that would be a relatively easy way to avoid future confusion on this kind of issue. At any rate, it is clear that TextDrive has no ill-will against Site5, and, in fact, has been quite helpful in addressing the issue. As such, I can assure you that we certainly have no ill-will against them. We look forward to a continued competitive (perhaps even more open) relationship with the company. Clearly Site5 and TextDrive share many common interests, and both companies would stand to gain immensely from a more frequent dialogue (read: any dialogue at all ;-). Again, I appreciate the attention on the matter--congrats on the 1.0 release of Rails! -- Matt Lightner CEO and Co-Founder Site5.com
On 12/13/05, Abdur-Rahman Advany <rails-U5wbzIpkoVrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> You don''t get the point, why would textdrive have even a system for > blocking referrers? and why would it block everything that has the url > in the name? mhhhhttp://www.modsecurity.org/
David Heinemeier Hansson
2005-Dec-14 05:48 UTC
Re: RubyOnRails.com blocking based on referrer?
> The people at Textdrive seem genuinely concerned and willing to > correct the error, so there''s no reason to believe this was done > intentionally. And as Derek mentioned, it doesn''t really make sense > for them to be blocking traffic from Site5 and affiliated sites. We > have many links to the Rails website throughout our various sites and > applications. Blocking all of that traffic would essentially waste a > large amount of free exposure, not to mention Page Rank.I''m happy to hear that, Matt. I''d be equally happy if you guys could bring this updated information to the various places that includes this charge against TextDrive. As you can see from this thread, such accusations can have consequences for a business like TextDrive that relies on trust. Mr. Advany, for example, seemed ready to burn them at the stake. I hope that there''s an official apology in the making. -- David Heinemeier Hansson http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
Mhhh, ill just contact textdrive directly, still doesn''t feel good
LOL, Im not ready to burn them at the stake, but its a realy big accusation that I can''t really understand. But Ill just contact textdrive directly, could find anything about this automaticly blocking behavouir on there site. If something like this was said for my business, It would affect me greatly. But its just really strange how they configured there mod_security. Well I am a bit sorry, for the somewhat overreacted replies, but I was a bit shoked and still am! Hosting is a very basic consern for a software engineer like me, I like it to be fully outsourced to people with knowledge. But if you hear something, like blocking visitors bassed on behavior (apart from site5) that a big deal for my client. Vriendelijke groet, Abdur-Rahman David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:>>The people at Textdrive seem genuinely concerned and willing to >>correct the error, so there''s no reason to believe this was done >>intentionally. And as Derek mentioned, it doesn''t really make sense >>for them to be blocking traffic from Site5 and affiliated sites. We >>have many links to the Rails website throughout our various sites and >>applications. Blocking all of that traffic would essentially waste a >>large amount of free exposure, not to mention Page Rank. >> >> > >I''m happy to hear that, Matt. I''d be equally happy if you guys could >bring this updated information to the various places that includes >this charge against TextDrive. As you can see from this thread, such >accusations can have consequences for a business like TextDrive that >relies on trust. Mr. Advany, for example, seemed ready to burn them at >the stake. > >I hope that there''s an official apology in the making. >-- >David Heinemeier Hansson >http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain >http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management >http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager >http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >
The issue was dealt with swiftly ... I suspect direct communications with Textdrive would have achieved the same result. Raising an issue with a competitor (apparently without first contacting) and then sneaking in a plug for one of your services is shoddy. David is absolutely correct. - John On 14/12/2005, at 3:48 PM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:>> The people at Textdrive seem genuinely concerned and willing to >> correct the error, so there''s no reason to believe this was done >> intentionally. And as Derek mentioned, it doesn''t really make sense >> for them to be blocking traffic from Site5 and affiliated sites. We >> have many links to the Rails website throughout our various sites and >> applications. Blocking all of that traffic would essentially waste a >> large amount of free exposure, not to mention Page Rank. > > I''m happy to hear that, Matt. I''d be equally happy if you guys could > bring this updated information to the various places that includes > this charge against TextDrive. As you can see from this thread, such > accusations can have consequences for a business like TextDrive that > relies on trust. Mr. Advany, for example, seemed ready to burn them at > the stake. > > I hope that there''s an official apology in the making. > -- > David Heinemeier Hansson > http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain > http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management > http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager > http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-- John Meredith <jmeredith-0iPedL6B8ETQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
I would _strongly_ recommend talking to somebody at TextDrive about this before throwing around accusations like this. Without doing any checking, this sounds like an overeager mod_security rule that blocks sites with a numeral in the domain. The wisdom of such a rule can be debated, but I don''t think it''s entirely appropriate to accuse TxD of anti-competitive practices without making an attempt to contact them about it first. Full disclosure: I am a TxD customer. AJS
Dear people, In respons to the accusation of site5 to textdrive I made some comment I should have made. I didn''t realize that the security measure where to ''protect'' blogs (as I and my friend didn''t know anything about hosting blogs, we didn''t know about the security mesures needed to be taken bij textdrive). I now understand why they blocked site5 but I still didn''t like the way the rules are setup. But still I would want to express my appologies to textdrive and there people. To make up for some of the negative publicity I have caused I will add advertisement to textdrive in a soon to be lauched rails website with training material (for dutch people but will be useable by anyone). Greetings, Abdur-Rahman
....I shouldN''T have made.... Abdur-Rahman Advany wrote:> Dear people, > > In respons to the accusation of site5 to textdrive I made some comment > I should have made. I didn''t realize that the security measure where > to ''protect'' blogs (as I and my friend didn''t know anything about > hosting blogs, we didn''t know about the security mesures needed to be > taken bij textdrive). I now understand why they blocked site5 but I > still didn''t like the way the rules are setup. > > But still I would want to express my appologies to textdrive and there > people. To make up for some of the negative publicity I have caused I > will add advertisement to textdrive in a soon to be lauched rails > website with training material (for dutch people but will be useable > by anyone). > > Greetings, > > Abdur-Rahman > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On 12/14/05, AJ Schuster <ajs-gnPts5UAjBPlj9YGbsWhW0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I would _strongly_ recommend talking to somebody at TextDrive about > this before throwing around accusations like this. Without doing any > checking, this sounds like an overeager mod_security rule that blocks > sites with a numeral in the domain. > > The wisdom of such a rule can be debated, but I don''t think it''s > entirely appropriate to accuse TxD of anti-competitive practices > without making an attempt to contact them about it first.Was that the rule that caused the blockage?
Heya :)> -----Original Message----- > From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > [mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of > John Meredith > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:33 AM > To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > Subject: Re: [Rails] RubyOnRails.com blocking based on referrer? > > Raising an issue with a competitor (apparently without first > contacting) and then sneaking in a plug for one of your > services is shoddy.I probably would have reacted similarly - but only because I couldn''t really imagine that a hosting company woudla ctually put in place an automated system that could without their knowledge or intervention block incomming traffic in a manner that would effect all their clients. I would have assumed that they must have done it deliberately, because it is completely baffling to me that they would let the system make such far reaching decisions without human intervention or review. The end result is not that I think TextDrive is malicious - but it is another factor that goes into the decision process when I recommend hosting that if I use them I will also have to worry about their automated security system causing problems for my sites. Soulhuntre ---------- http://www.girl2.com - my girls http://www.the-estate.com - my legacy http://wiki.thegreybook.com - my project http://weblog.soulhuntre.com - my thoughts
On Dec 14, 2005, at 1:33 AM, John Meredith wrote:> > Raising an issue with a competitor (apparently without first > contacting) and then sneaking in a plug for one of your services is > shoddy. >Site5 doesn''t sell dedicated server hosting Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn''t catch that part of your message until it was quoted later. -- Adam C. Greenfield Chief Technology Officer Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. Phone: (888) 748-3526 x 906 E-Mail: adam.greenfield-4NUXONnYH+wAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org