|
|
 | | From: | Steve Bennett | | Subject: | Testers wanted for new juggling game | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 21:19:18 -0800 |
|
|
 | Hi all,
I'm looking for a couple of alpha testers for a new juggling game I'm
working on. You have to be willing to try out different versions of
the game, give me feedback about what you like and hate about it, and
not distribute it to anyone. You'll also need the .NET runtime v1.1,
and probably a relatively powerful machine (say 1.2ghz+).
People with varied abilities in both juggling and computer games very
welcome.
Please contact me at stevage.gmail@com (swap the @ and .) if you're
interested.
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
| | From: | Schwolop | | Subject: | Re: Testers wanted for new juggling game | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 23:45:25 GMT |
|
|
| In on 23/01/05 11:58 PM, Rory
Parle wrote:
> Schwolop wrote:
>> Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>>Hmm, looks like my email address got obscured in the previous post.
>>>If you're interested please contact stevage at gee em ay eye ell (dot)
>>>comm (moc.liamg (at) egavets, backwards)
>>
>> I'm curious now, how good are web crawlers' programmers? In your last
>> two posts, you've shown three different ways of encoding your email,
>> and yet they all seem completely excessive. I think the chances of a
>> robot being programmed to check a poster's name, and then try
>> emailing to name@domain is pretty slim, so why not just do what I do
>> and write your address as junk@domain.com then tell people to replace
>> junk with your name (or nickname in your case). It's considerably
>> easier for the human to decifer, and will almost certainly still
>> block the crawlers.
>
> That means the spam is still sent to a valid domain, clogging up
> network resources. The best option is to replace the top level domain
> with "invalid" and then tell people that it should be "org", "com", or
> "net" etc. "Invalid" is guaranteed never to be used as a TLD so your
> munged address will never have a valid domain. The spam won't even be
> sent.
>
I suppose that is more sensible... Nonetheless, isn't it perfectly
possible to configure a server to check just the header of the email?
And then not even download it if the to: address is invalid. That would
save a fair amount of bandwidth straight away. I naturally assumed this
was what my server was doing as my hosting provider had an option marked
"Do not accept email to this address" or something similar.
Anyway, I should probably try and get this thread back on topic! Some
people may be aware that the Microsoft .NET protocol went offline last
night (possibly for legitimate reasons, I haven't looked into it yet
haven't just woken up). This outage closed services such as MSN
Messenger, etc. Anyway, Steve's game uses the .NET 1.1 protocol (to what
extent I don't know), would such an outage cause issues with it? Or is
the protocol only used for certain parts of the game?
Also, when are you actually planning to send stuff to testers?
--
Tom
junk@jugglethis.net with my name instead of junk...
|
|
| | From: | Rory Parle | | Subject: | Re: Testers wanted for new juggling game | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:56:45 +0000 |
|
|
| Schwolop wrote:
> In on 23/01/05 11:58 PM, Rory
> Parle wrote:
>>That means the spam is still sent to a valid domain, clogging up
>>network resources. The best option is to replace the top level domain
>>with "invalid" and then tell people that it should be "org", "com", or
>>"net" etc. "Invalid" is guaranteed never to be used as a TLD so your
>>munged address will never have a valid domain. The spam won't even be
>>sent.
>
> I suppose that is more sensible... Nonetheless, isn't it perfectly
> possible to configure a server to check just the header of the email?
> And then not even download it if the to: address is invalid. That would
> save a fair amount of bandwidth straight away. I naturally assumed this
> was what my server was doing as my hosting provider had an option marked
> "Do not accept email to this address" or something similar.
No, the post office protocol (the protocol used by clients to connect to
their mail server and collect their mail) is capable of retrieving
headers only. So is IMAP, the protocol that's slowly taking over from
POP. The simple mail transfer protocol, used all the way from the
sending host to the mail server, sends everything. It's possible for any
host along the way to refuse the mail but then it will just re-route via
another host. Your own server can reject it eventually but it has still
traveled through a number of servers to get there. By munging the TLD it
will never leave the spammer's computer, because the address will never
resolve.
> Anyway, I should probably try and get this thread back on topic! Some
> people may be aware that the Microsoft .NET protocol went offline last
> night (possibly for legitimate reasons, I haven't looked into it yet
> haven't just woken up). This outage closed services such as MSN
> Messenger, etc. Anyway, Steve's game uses the .NET 1.1 protocol (to what
> extent I don't know), would such an outage cause issues with it? Or is
> the protocol only used for certain parts of the game?
> Also, when are you actually planning to send stuff to testers?
Microsoft seems to want to call everything .net, in the same way that
everything from SUN is labeled Java. The .net series of services (MSN
etc.) is entirely different from the .NET framework, which is just a
collection of programming languages and a virtual machine to run the
programs under. The .net top level domain is a separate thing again.
--
Rory Parle
http://www.netsoc.dit.ie/~jugsoc/
|
|
| | From: | Steve Bennett | | Subject: | Re: Testers wanted for new juggling game | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 17:41:55 -0800 |
|
|
| Hi all,
Quick bump as I need more testers. A teaser:
I have successfully juggled all the following patterns in the game:
3,5 cascade, half shower, reverse cascade
3,4,5 shower
3 sync box (4,2x)*
3 async box (612)
441
4 and 6 wimpy
4 half shower
3,4,5 columns
531
4 pistons
4 semi-wimpy (4x,4x)(4,4)
3 super box (8,2x)(4,2x)(0,2x)*
Hmm, looks like my email address got obscured in the previous post.
If you're interested please contact stevage at gee em ay eye ell (dot)
comm (moc.liamg (at) egavets, backwards)
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
| | From: | Schwolop | | Subject: | Re: Testers wanted for new juggling game | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 07:49:31 GMT |
|
|
| Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hmm, looks like my email address got obscured in the previous post.
> If you're interested please contact stevage at gee em ay eye ell (dot)
> comm (moc.liamg (at) egavets, backwards)
I'm curious now, how good are web crawlers' programmers? In your last two
posts, you've shown three different ways of encoding your email, and yet
they all seem completely excessive. I think the chances of a robot being
programmed to check a poster's name, and then try emailing to name@domain
is pretty slim, so why not just do what I do and write your address as
junk@domain.com then tell people to replace junk with your name (or
nickname in your case). It's considerably easier for the human to decifer,
and will almost certainly still block the crawlers.
For the record, I frequently post junk@jugglethis.net as my email - all
mail to it gets rejected by the server (which only downloads the header,
not the message, thus saving bandwidth) - anyway, it gets HEAPS of spam,
but 'tom' at the same domain gets none. Thus far... (or until I make
enemies with someone who just posts it in plain text. Hopefully no one is
THAT pissed off with me!)
Tom
junk@jugglethis.net - replace junk with my name.
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
|
|
| | From: | Rory Parle | | Subject: | Re: Testers wanted for new juggling game | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:58:16 +0000 |
|
|
| Schwolop wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>>Hmm, looks like my email address got obscured in the previous post.
>>If you're interested please contact stevage at gee em ay eye ell (dot)
>>comm (moc.liamg (at) egavets, backwards)
>
> I'm curious now, how good are web crawlers' programmers? In your last two
> posts, you've shown three different ways of encoding your email, and yet
> they all seem completely excessive. I think the chances of a robot being
> programmed to check a poster's name, and then try emailing to name@domain
> is pretty slim, so why not just do what I do and write your address as
> junk@domain.com then tell people to replace junk with your name (or
> nickname in your case). It's considerably easier for the human to decifer,
> and will almost certainly still block the crawlers.
That means the spam is still sent to a valid domain, clogging up network
resources. The best option is to replace the top level domain with
"invalid" and then tell people that it should be "org", "com", or "net"
etc. "Invalid" is guaranteed never to be used as a TLD so your munged
address will never have a valid domain. The spam won't even be sent.
--
Rory Parle
http://www.netsoc.dit.ie/~jugsoc/
|
|
| | From: | Steve Bennett | | Subject: | Re: Testers wanted for new juggling game | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 16:26:46 -0800 |
|
|
| Hi Tom,
Actually in my second post my problem was that google groups was
obscuring my email address when I actually wanted it visible :) I'm
presuming from your post that it still shows up in other servers, so
the obscuring is only on the user side.
As an example, in your post above, I see n...@domain (n dot dot dot at
domain).
The address that I'm posting from at the moment (gg at stevage dot com)
is a valid address, but goes straight into a spam box. A long time ago
I posted _twice_ with this address (never used it before that, or after
until recently), and those two posts were generating about 5 spams a
day to that address, at least a year later.
Rory wrote:
> The best option is to replace the top level domain with
>"invalid" and then tell people that it should be "org", "com", or
"net"
I'm not sure. My guess is that a simple regular expression that looks
for some text then yahoo/hotmail/gmail/aol would easily foil attempts
like that. It'd be pretty trivial even to thwart any fixed rule (ay oh
ell, thingNOSPAM@foo.com etc). Completely speculative, but being
creative may be the way to go.
On my jugglefactory webpage, I actually store the email address as
something like jugglefactorybananastevage.com and use dynamic HTML to
substitute the banana for a @ at run time :)
Fwiw.
Steve
|
|
|
