4 ms·

I'd agree that's weird. Seems like if it were simply renamed to .html with no content changes, then it would be okay. > What else is important to note that the

I'd agree that's weird. Seems like if it were simply renamed to .html with no content changes, then it would be okay. > What else is important to note that the client is being abused and not the client abusing the service. That should be taken into consideration, when deciding if someone is breaking the ToS. My understanding has this as moot. The issue from Cloudflare's perspective is only that the content is non-HTML and doesn't have anything to do with the rate of traffic (the abuse).

bombcar 4y ago
> (i) serving web pages as viewed through a web browser or other functionally equivalent applications, including rendering Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or other functional equivalents, and (ii) serving web APIs subject to the restrictions set forth in this Section 2.8. The key is "as viewed through a web browser" imo, this is not really an API and it's not a webpage; it's a datafile and would fall into R2 or similar things.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I see, that makes the position more understandable. I guess the same rule would (should) apply if they did indeed simply change the extension.
- Spunkie 4y ago
  Why do people keep talking like you can't just navigate to a txt file in your browser and have it serve as any old web content? Which is something I have actually done many years ago to search for a domain in these types of lists. Cloudflare is balancing on a razer for this TOS technicality.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It's lawyer speak, but the meaning is clear "this Cloudflare service is for webpages in a browser, not automated data downloads and distribution".
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    The TOS aren’t referring to content-type headers, magic bytes, TCP headers, browser support of file formats, or any technical implementation. To oversimplify, they’re saying Cloudflare’s service is to be used for serving websites to browsers. Serving a static text file that is primarily used by applications is not in line with their terms of service. Cloudflare provides a significant service to the free and open web by subsidizing the hosting costs of static content for websites. They give that away for free under what appears to be reasonable terms. I’m not sure why you’re trying to “gotcha” through their ToS. It would be great if Cloudflare would donate resources to EasyList - it would do a lot to help the free and open internet by giving users more power over what gets delivered to their browser. But call that what it is: a donation.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      > I’m not sure why you’re trying to “gotcha” through their ToS. People are doing the opposite, pointing out the hole and asking them to get a better rule. Surely they don't just want the list merely converted into html. > They give that away for free [...] So they should specify things that influence cost such as total bytes served, number of files, etc. Currently all you can do it bypass the rule because you don't know how to cooperate.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
kenmacd 4y ago
> Seems like if it were simply renamed to .html with no content changes, then it would be okay. Imagine you do that and I DDoS the URL. CF will then mitigate this DDoS by, in part, replacing your html with their Browser Integrity Check html. If you're serving 'web pages and websites' everything continues to work. What would happen if this list suddenly became an actual webpage. If your site is serving 'a disproportionate percentage' of non-html you decrease the ability of CF to tell good traffic from bad.

bombcar 4y ago

> (i) serving web pages as viewed through a web browser or other functionally equivalent applications, including rendering Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or other functional equivalents, and (ii) serving web APIs subject to the restrictions set forth in this Section 2.8. The key is "as viewed through a web browser" imo, this is not really an API and it's not a webpage; it's a datafile and would fall into R2 or similar things.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I see, that makes the position more understandable. I guess the same rule would (should) apply if they did indeed simply change the extension.
Spunkie 4y ago
Why do people keep talking like you can't just navigate to a txt file in your browser and have it serve as any old web content? Which is something I have actually done many years ago to search for a domain in these types of lists. Cloudflare is balancing on a razer for this TOS technicality.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's lawyer speak, but the meaning is clear "this Cloudflare service is for webpages in a browser, not automated data downloads and distribution".
- r3trohack3r 4y ago
  The TOS aren’t referring to content-type headers, magic bytes, TCP headers, browser support of file formats, or any technical implementation. To oversimplify, they’re saying Cloudflare’s service is to be used for serving websites to browsers. Serving a static text file that is primarily used by applications is not in line with their terms of service. Cloudflare provides a significant service to the free and open web by subsidizing the hosting costs of static content for websites. They give that away for free under what appears to be reasonable terms. I’m not sure why you’re trying to “gotcha” through their ToS. It would be great if Cloudflare would donate resources to EasyList - it would do a lot to help the free and open internet by giving users more power over what gets delivered to their browser. But call that what it is: a donation.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > I’m not sure why you’re trying to “gotcha” through their ToS. People are doing the opposite, pointing out the hole and asking them to get a better rule. Surely they don't just want the list merely converted into html. > They give that away for free [...] So they should specify things that influence cost such as total bytes served, number of files, etc. Currently all you can do it bypass the rule because you don't know how to cooperate.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

kenmacd 4y ago

> Seems like if it were simply renamed to .html with no content changes, then it would be okay. Imagine you do that and I DDoS the URL. CF will then mitigate this DDoS by, in part, replacing your html with their Browser Integrity Check html. If you're serving 'web pages and websites' everything continues to work. What would happen if this list suddenly became an actual webpage. If your site is serving 'a disproportionate percentage' of non-html you decrease the ability of CF to tell good traffic from bad.