4 ms·
IMO, it is also unreasonable to have ultra-restrictive rate limits, like blocking a client after one request. https://rachelbythebay.com/w/atom.xml https://rac
by someothherguyy 2y ago
IMO, it is also unreasonable to have ultra-restrictive rate limits, like blocking a client after one request.
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/atom.xml https://rachelbythebay.com/w/atom.xml
- ing33k 2y agohaha, true. Just got blocked because I opened the link once and clicked on refresh.
- rmholt 2y agoMaybe a warning after 3 requests and a ban on 4 per 24hr, but I understand the sentiment
- horsawlarway 2y agoI'm with you. Especially as the cost to serve this content approaches zero. I find the take in the blog to be relatively hostile. It's a "technically correct" rant. Not wrong, but mostly missing the point, and being a bit of a dick in the process. Sure - block the readers that make a request every 10 seconds. It's perfectly reasonable to block clients if they hit a limit like 20 to 50 requests in a day. It's damn hostile to block for 24 hours after a single request. If the 10MB of traffic for 20 requests is going to break the bank... maybe don't host an atom or RSS feed at all? --- That said - weirdos can weird on their own sites as they like. It's not a public service. But I bucket this into the same category of weird as posting a whole bunch of threatening "no trespassing", "beware of dog", "homeowner is armed", "Solicitors not welcome", etc style signs all over their property. Like - point out on the doll where the rss client hurt you. Because something's up.