|
|
|
|
#1
08-01-2010, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#2
08-01-2010, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
Agreed. Since I didn't play hardly any pet classes on Live I don't remember if pets were commandable from that far away in classic or not. Although I did play a shammy in the PoP era and I seem to remember being able to tell a pet to Go Away when it got lost clear across the zone.
__________________
Kebbon Corpsewagon
Dwarf Rogue, corpse-dragging specialist and dungeon crawler extraordinaire | ||
|
|
|||
|
#3
08-01-2010, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
That's not the same thing. The "solution" you proposed is designed for the HTTP protocol, which is not the underlying protocol for EverQuest. You presented it as if it was something that'd stop proxy users from accessing EQ post-ban — it wouldn't, because the proxy user would be using a UDP/SOCKS5 tool.
However, if eqemulator.org worked with P99 to establish a list of banned IPs (be it private or proxy), then it'd be very simple to deny registration to those IPs. You wouldn't even need the software you linked for that.
__________________
Kebbon Corpsewagon
Dwarf Rogue, corpse-dragging specialist and dungeon crawler extraordinaire | ||
|
|
|||
|
#4
08-01-2010, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
To create a game account you need a forum account. Forum accounts come first, and happen using... wait for it... HTTP!
There are hundreds of proxy servers around the world, and they each lease thousands of IPs. Read how the software works. Any all volunteer project is better off drumming up 400 bucks than trying to manually chase down several hundred thousand IP addresses. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#5
08-01-2010, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
/sigh... no shit the registration piece works on HTTP. But guess what? Currently there's no apparent direct partnership between P99 and eqemulator.org (that I'm aware of).
Again, you were presenting the software as something that would solve the problem now, as in under the current arrangement. Why else would you say "if we all pitch in"? Nice try to retrofit what you were suggesting, though! Unfortunately for you, I'm not as dumb as you're trying to make me out to be. Keep trying to school me even though software/web development is what I do for a living, kiddo. I did read how the software works. I've worked with proxies both from a client and server perspective. Have you? Somehow I doubt it. So here's lesson #1: it doesn't matter if a proxy server can issue hundreds of unique IP addresses. You wouldn't block registration at the individual IP level. In many cases you'd get away with simply banning the first two octets, though realistically you'd probably need to go the third octet. Granted, you're potentially blocking some innocent people in that case but that'd have to be handled on an individual basis. The bottom line is you don't need to track thousands and thousands of IPs. Class dismissed.
__________________
Kebbon Corpsewagon
Dwarf Rogue, corpse-dragging specialist and dungeon crawler extraordinaire | ||
|
Last edited by frefaln; 08-01-2010 at 01:24 PM..
|
|
||
|
#6
08-01-2010, 01:28 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
(me)
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#7
08-02-2010, 01:34 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards, Nagash | |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
08-01-2010, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
Fantastic! Now I'm aware. So now that that's established, what's your take on why IP banning can't be implemented at the registration level?
Edit: yes, I realize that this is hardly a silver bullet either. A person banned on a Comcast IP (for example) could easily use a web-proxy or head to a public library to set up more registrations. And for all we know there may already be hundreds of dormant registrations sitting around for later use. But still, one step at a time.
__________________
Kebbon Corpsewagon
Dwarf Rogue, corpse-dragging specialist and dungeon crawler extraordinaire | ||
|
Last edited by frefaln; 08-01-2010 at 01:46 PM..
|
|
||
|
#9
08-01-2010, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
yup, move it to nfport again. I don't care, it's part of being an evil race, and being kos. Other things I'd like to see dealt with before this anywho.
| ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
