Well, that was peculiar. This was a comment I posted, but it got "flagged for moderation". Only I looked for it, and it wasn't there.

A while back I decided I didn't like that "flagged for moderation" feature, so I set the "moderation" threshold and the "spam" threshold to be the same. Which meant I got the "moderation" error message, but the "spam" response. Pixy? (I wonder if I should set the "moderation" threshold to be higher than the "spam" threshold? or set it to a ridiculously huge number?)

Anyway, this is what I posted:

UPDATE: I'm moving all that stuff below the fold, to unclutterize the front page, since few people will be interested in it.

J, when I do a tracert to 38.112.2.94, it looks like this:

#    IP address       Host name                                Round trip time
1    192.168.1.1      regulus                             0 ms
2                     No response                        
3    68.87.218.9      GE-1-2-ur03.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
4    68.87.216.50     te-9-1-ur04.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
5    68.87.216.101    te-8-4-ur05.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
6    68.87.216.98     te-9-1-ur06.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
7    68.87.216.106    te-7-4-ar01.troutdale.or.bverton.comcas16 ms
8    12.116.25.33     Unavailable                         17 ms
9    12.127.6.177     ar2.st6wa.ip.att.net                37 ms
10   12.122.12.113    tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net               41 ms
11   12.122.86.189    Unavailable                         39 ms
12   192.205.34.34    Unavailable                         42 ms
13                    No response                        
14   154.54.5.105     te4-1.mpd01.sjc04.atlas.cogentco.com50 ms
15                    No response                        
16                    No response                        
17                    No response                        
18                    No response                        
19                    No response                        
20                    No response                        
21                    No response                        
22                    No response                        
23                    No response                        
24                    No response                        
25                    No response

Which is interesting: I don't seem to be able to reach you, either. A tracert to 209.81.13.65 is:

#    IP address       Host name                                Round trip time
1    192.168.1.1      regulus                             0 ms
2                     No response                        
3    68.87.218.9      GE-1-2-ur03.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
4    68.87.216.50     te-9-1-ur04.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas14 ms
5    68.87.216.101    te-8-4-ur05.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
6    68.87.216.98     te-9-1-ur06.beaverton.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
7    68.87.216.106    te-7-4-ar01.troutdale.or.bverton.comcas15 ms
8    64.212.32.158    COMCAST-IP-SERVICES-LLC.TenGigabitEther20 ms
9    64.212.32.157    TenGigabitEthernet1-3.ar5.SEA1.gblx.net19 ms
10   64.214.174.246   Hurrican-Electric-LLC.TenGigabitEtherne38 ms
11   72.52.92.69      10gigabitethernet3-2.core1.pao1.he.net37 ms
12   209.81.1.2       ge-0-1-0-41.r00.uspao.via.net       39 ms
13   157.22.9.94      ge-0-0-0-1.a00.usnuq.via.net        40 ms
14   157.22.9.6       vl500.usmtv.via.net                 44 ms
15   209.81.13.65     dotclue.org                         39 ms

Neither of them includes 68.87.216.30.

And that shouldn't be the next-to-last hop from you to me anyway. The next-to-last hop should be my cable modem, which should refuse to respond. (It's my hop 2. Hop 1 is my server doing NAT.)

Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Site Stuff at 10:29 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 9 kb.

1 It's correct for 38.112.2.94 to reject traceroute, but you should be able to ping it, and traceroute to the machine that routes to it, nicmonster.ooma.com (38.112.37.150). It's interesting that you got all the way to Cogent's San Jose routers before falling off the edge of the earth, though. Much the same way my packets almost reach your machine...

As for hop count, when I try from home, #12 is 68.87.216.30, and #14 is 70.90.130.45.

-j

Posted by: J Greely at December 10, 2007 11:11 PM (2XtN5)

2

70.90.130.45 is my server. That's my permanent IP, the one that "denbeste.nu" maps to. Hop 13 (which doesn't answer) is my modem.

This is very peculiar. Routing problems? That I almost reach you but don't, and you almost reach me but don't?

10 pings to 38.112.2.94 was 100% fail.
10 pings to 38.112.37.150 was 100% fail.

Which reminds me of a PIBKAC I did a couple of years ago. I was having trouble reaching Bob's store site on Yahoo. It turned out that the problem was that I had blocked Yahoo's IP range in my server firewall. (I don't remember why; probably because one of the IPs in that bank was a crawler and I used a big axe against it.)

So my pings to their server got answered, but their response was dropped by my firewall, and thus I never saw it. After I got rid of that firewall rule, it worked perfectly.

I bet that the problem here is that Ooma is blocking my IP.

I just took a look in my referer logs. There are no records today or yesterday for either 209.81.13.65 or 38.112.2.94.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 10, 2007 11:29 PM (+rSRq)

3 You'd lose the bet, since I run the firewall. I'm quite certain that nicmonster isn't blocking you, and as I said, some days it works. I actually suspect it's one of Cogent's routers doing the work; probably the same quality control that occasionally leads them to publicly route pieces of 10.0.0.0/8 from their own internal network.

wouldn't

-j

Posted by: J Greely at December 11, 2007 09:10 AM (2XtN5)

4 Mrf; somehow my side comment ended up being interpreted as formatting commands, and got replaced with my name. You shouldn't see traffic from 209.81.13.65, since it's in a co-lo and I don't proxy through it. It was just a handy place to run a traceroute from.

-j

Posted by: J Greely at December 11, 2007 09:12 AM (2XtN5)

5

It may be a hiccup with one of the tags Pixy built into the system. If you put "you" between brackets, it does this.

you

"Me" between brackets does this.

Will

It lets you do stuff like,

"Will thinks you is a piker." The names in that statement will be different for everyone who reads it.

Posted by: Will at December 11, 2007 09:21 AM (WnBa/)

6 What does it do for someone who isn't logged in?

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 11, 2007 10:08 AM (+rSRq)

7 I honestly have no idea. Guess I could log out and see.

Posted by: Will at December 11, 2007 10:12 AM (WnBa/)

8

Odd... It left everything intact as if I'd never logged out. I did a refresh of the page to clear the cache and it still had my name in all the right places.

That tags been around for a while. People were playing around with it in the comments to this post a long time ago. It seemed to work with anonymous users who had at least commented. Maybe Minx keeps a log linking user names to IP hashes?

Posted by: Will at December 11, 2007 10:22 AM (WnBa/)

9

Haha, reading the old bbcode tag messages reminds me of someone figuring out how to do that in Javascript and posting a "flame" on an EverQuest server board that would grab a person's ID out of their cookies file.  Board dramas were all the rage, and folks were always looking for a good one to help push along, but I think it was something like six pages of people fooled into ranting back at the original poster before someone figured it out.

Of course, then they all started sending IM's to their friends, "DuDe, u need 2 see THIS, sumone h8s ur gutz!"

About fifty pages later, the mod got sick of messages from irate players threatening libel actions for allowing the post, and deleted it.  Seriously, nobody but you could be that stupid enough to fall for that....

;-)

Posted by: ubu at December 11, 2007 11:35 AM (dhRpo)

10 If you think I'm going to say something...

Posted by: Wonderduck at December 11, 2007 12:23 PM (dGuAN)

11 I can see how something like that could be seriously abused in open comments.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 11, 2007 12:40 PM (+rSRq)

12 When I am not logged in, it says 'you' instead of PatBuckman.

There are a few problems with this:

'You are the legitimate world dictator.'
'Steven Den Beste is the legitimate world dictator.'

'You have conquered.'
'Steven Den Beste has conquered.'

Posted by: PatBuckman at December 11, 2007 01:11 PM (EOUd+)

13

Posted by: PatBuckman at December 11, 2007 01:12 PM (EOUd+)

14 oops

Posted by: PatBuckman at December 11, 2007 01:13 PM (EOUd+)

15 I think I'll have to tweak the BBCode interpreter a little to help it distinguish between malformatted tags and plain old text in square brackets.  The more forgiving I make it with tags the more likely it is to trip you up the other way.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 11, 2007 01:44 PM (PiXy!)

16 I've already had one n00b write to me and ask, "Why is everyone talking about me in this thread?"

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 11, 2007 09:47 PM (+rSRq)

17 You know, maybe blog authors should have the option of deactivating individual tags in their comments without turning off all html and bbcode tags.

Posted by: Will at December 12, 2007 05:48 AM (E3UGR)

18 Will, that's a good idea and a bad idea.  Good - gives the blog owner more control.  Bad - commenters find that some tags suddenly don't work on some blogs.  I'll probably do it, though.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 12, 2007 05:54 AM (PiXy!)

19 That particular one seems as if there's no good use for it, but plenty of opportunity for mischief. I think it should be outright deleted unconditionally.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 12, 2007 08:54 AM (+rSRq)

20 Hey....  how did my ID get into this mess?  I didn't do it, I SWEAR!!!

Posted by: dkallen99 at December 12, 2007 09:48 AM (1PFDl)

21

That's what I thought, but I decided to be clever about making my arguement, since I don't have an active Mee.Nu blog.  A university study¹ indicates that clever people are 6.42 times as annoying when they make their points -- which means the victim of their cleverness remembers it.

¹"Annoying Russian Agents for Fun and Profit," by Dr. Bullwinkle, published in Flying Squirell Quarterly, Whattsimatta U. Press, Jan, 1978.

Posted by: ubu at December 12, 2007 09:54 AM (dhRpo)

22 This reminds me of the good old mainframe days.  Console and inter-system messages were tagged with the ID of the sender... but the system operator could always over-ride this.  We used to log in remotely as system ops, and send console messages to the current actual sys-op, tagged with some other poor soul's ID.

Of course, us being college students, it tended to get out of hand, with the director of the CS department appearing to heap abuse on the poor (other) student operators at the time.  Good fun, though.

Posted by: dkallen99 at December 12, 2007 10:41 AM (1PFDl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment