Alan Poulter <l...@poulter.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Is anyone else having problems accessing archive.org? If you are please > can you email me rather than reply here.
i.e. THUS is intercepting access to archive.org for some reason, presumably because one website ever has had an IWF warning at some point in history, or something.
> In message <4D9q4yKHOcaJF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe > <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes
>>i.e. THUS is intercepting access to archive.org for some reason,
> Oh joy ... yet more "unintended collateral damage" from the IWF.
> Didn't they actually learn ANYTHING from their Wikipedia disaster just > before Christmas?
The irony is that www.iwf.org.uk and www.thus.net, those known havens of child porn, are both blocked via Archive.org ;-) I have emailed TheRegister the story but no interest so far :-(
>> In message <4D9q4yKHOcaJF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe >> <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes
>>>i.e. THUS is intercepting access to archive.org for some reason,
>> Oh joy ... yet more "unintended collateral damage" from the IWF.
>> Didn't they actually learn ANYTHING from their Wikipedia disaster just >> before Christmas?
>The irony is that www.iwf.org.uk and www.thus.net, those >known havens of child porn, are both blocked via Archive.org ;-) >I have emailed TheRegister the story but no interest so far :-(
I get the irony, what I am not sure about is why archive.org is important. It could be I misunderstand the importance of your message, I remain puzzled as to why archive.org should be the measure.
The IWF have done a number of embarrassing things that they probably don't want everyone to know about. thus, on the other hand is a company that should expect itself to be examined by investors, etc.
Are you joining thus and the IWF together in a significant way?
My understanding is that they are separate.
-- Wm... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
>>> In message <4D9q4yKHOcaJF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe >>> <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes
>>>>i.e. THUS is intercepting access to archive.org for some reason,
>>> Oh joy ... yet more "unintended collateral damage" from the IWF.
>>> Didn't they actually learn ANYTHING from their Wikipedia disaster just >>> before Christmas?
>>The irony is that www.iwf.org.uk and www.thus.net, those >>known havens of child porn, are both blocked via Archive.org ;-) >>I have emailed TheRegister the story but no interest so far :-(
> I get the irony, what I am not sure about is why archive.org is > important. It could be I misunderstand the importance of your message, > I remain puzzled as to why archive.org should be the measure.
Archive.org I find to be a very useful site and I am not alone. According to alexa.com it is ranked 408th in the world for traffic. It spiders sites according to set policies in order to preserve them and it will remove sites if notified. Therefore it is extremely unlikely to be a child porn haven or have anything that the IWF should worry about.
> The IWF have done a number of embarrassing things that they probably > don't want everyone to know about. thus, on the other hand is a company > that should expect itself to be examined by investors, etc.
> Are you joining thus and the IWF together in a significant way?
> My understanding is that they are separate.
That is my understanding as well. Since I know other UK ISPs have not blocked Archive.org (I can access it via my mobile ISP and from work) then I can only assume someone at Thus has been stupid enough to use Thus's IWF filter to block it. It makes you wonder how much coordination there is between the IWF and UK ISPs. Are other ISPs operating rogue blocks under IWF auspices? Are some ISPs not blocking sites they should?
Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:51:35 <Xns9B926432D6C66alanpoulterdemonc...@216.196.109.144> demon.service Alan Poulter <a...@poulter.demon.co.uk>
>That is my understanding as well. Since I know other UK ISPs have >not blocked Archive.org (I can access it via my mobile ISP and from work) >then I can only assume someone at Thus has been stupid enough to use Thus's >IWF filter to block it.
That is a leap of imagination I cannot make. demon have, in the past, been over zealous about IWF matters but I don't think they really don't want people to see what they had to say. Could it be archive.org is in error?
> It makes you wonder how much coordination there is >between the IWF and UK ISPs. Are other ISPs operating rogue blocks under >IWF auspices? Are some ISPs not blocking sites they should?
Hmmmn. Have you considered paranoia? I am not suggesting you are paranoid so much as suggesting archive.org may have a mental block.
-- Wm... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
> i.e. THUS is intercepting access to archive.org for some reason,
I can access the archive.org homepage. What's being blocked?
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ==== Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557 CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
You will see a list of the archived front pages of Demon's website. Click on any of the links, and you will see that they have been rendered useless because Demon's iwfwebfilter has wrecked the URL by adding the following:
In message <$8gZmyGUyHbJFwzr@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>Could it be archive.org is in error?
I'm not sure how. Demon's IWF web filter is rewriting every link on their site - I don't think Demon intend to block every WWW site that has ever been archived by the company, but that's what they have been doing for quite some weeks.
Try going to http://www.archive.org/index.php and then entering www.bbc.co.uk in the "Wayback Machine". Click on any of the archived links, and instead of seeing the BBC's frontpage you will see "Not found" because Demon's web filter has added:
We complained to the IWF today, and they say they are not responsible: "I can confirm that there is no entry for webarchive.org ... on the IWF URL list or reported to the IWF and therefore I am unable to take your complaint further".
I guess I could complain to archive.org, but they are almost certain to say that it's not their fault that Demon is rewriting the URL (without the authority of the IWF it would now seem).
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:20:32 +0000, Paul Terry <n...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <$8gZmyGUyHbJFwzr@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... ><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>Could it be archive.org is in error?
>I'm not sure how. Demon's IWF web filter is rewriting every link on >their site - I don't think Demon intend to block every WWW site that has >ever been archived by the company, but that's what they have been doing >for quite some weeks.
>Try going to http://www.archive.org/index.php and then entering >www.bbc.co.uk in the "Wayback Machine". Click on any of the archived >links, and instead of seeing the BBC's frontpage you will see "Not >found" because Demon's web filter has added:
Paul Terry <n...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > I guess I could complain to archive.org, but they are almost certain to > say that it's not their fault that Demon is rewriting the URL (without > the authority of the IWF it would now seem).
I tried (using Demon's DNS as always) news.bbc.co.uk and it works fine- all the web pages I tried are accessible. But an attempt to get plain bbc.co.uk fails, with the iwf redirection.
So it's not so simple. Demon is rewriting selectively (which they should do, of course) but it looks like the grounds for rewriting are broken, by any standards.
As I understand from the IWF page on Demon's site, the onus to get a site unblocked is on the site owner. So it's up to Demon to contact the IWF and ask what the hell is going on? -- Peter
>I'm not sure how. Demon's IWF web filter is rewriting every link on >their site - I don't think Demon intend to block every WWW site that >has ever been archived by the company, but that's what they have been >doing for quite some weeks.
I feel ill. I mean physically sick. I didn't want to believe this.
>Try going to http://www.archive.org/index.php and then entering >www.bbc.co.uk in the "Wayback Machine". Click on any of the archived >links, and instead of seeing the BBC's frontpage you will see "Not >found" because Demon's web filter has added:
>We complained to the IWF today, and they say they are not responsible: >"I can confirm that there is no entry for webarchive.org ... on the IWF >URL list or reported to the IWF and therefore I am unable to take your >complaint further".
>I guess I could complain to archive.org, but they are almost certain to >say that it's not their fault that Demon is rewriting the URL (without >the authority of the IWF it would now seem).
What is a person meant to say at this point?
If the bbc is bad what recourse do we have? Yes I can still access the bbc website but I am very unhappy demon is abusing the IWF (I am not currently a fan of theirs) in order to (presumably) prevent me seeing something the bbc has produced.
I think this goes beyond Daily Mail puritanism.
Fix this very soon, demon
-- Wm... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
In message <FpRwq$IwtNbJF...@musonix.demon.co.uk>, Paul Terry <n...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Try going to http://www.archive.org/index.php and then entering >www.bbc.co.uk in the "Wayback Machine". Click on any of the archived >links, and instead of seeing the BBC's frontpage you will see "Not >found" because Demon's web filter has added: >http://iwfwebfilter.thus.net/web/ .... >to the front of the URL.
In message <y3wqkuJUIPbJFwy6@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote [
>>Try going to http://www.archive.org/index.php and then entering >>www.bbc.co.uk in the "Wayback Machine". Click on any of the archived >>links, and instead of seeing the BBC's frontpage you will see "Not >>found" because Demon's web filter has added:
There's a further oddity - the URL-as-displayed doesn't work if I remove the http://iwfwebfilter.thus.net/web/ bit, as it then has a numerical string that looks like the date you're trying to go back to *followed by* the BBC front page URL.
Ie, it looks as if someone has not only added a prefix, but also inverted the original URL. -- Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]. Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com>
In message <1ithz78.12iiu3q18s0zooN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote
>I tried (using Demon's DNS as always) news.bbc.co.uk and it works fine- >all the web pages I tried are accessible. But an attempt to get plain >bbc.co.uk fails, with the iwf redirection.
Here, www.bbc.co.uk works and gets me "all the news that's fit to read", or some of it anyway.
If I try bbc.co.uk then my browser (IE7) turns it into www.bbc.co.uk.
news.bbc.co.uk gets me a different BBC News page; possibly it's the UK news while the www variant is world news. -- Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]. Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com>
In article <r1pFgUB9YPbJF...@gehena.demon.co.uk>, Rex M F Smith <use...@gehena.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In message <FpRwq$IwtNbJF...@musonix.demon.co.uk>, Paul Terry ><n...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Try going to http://www.archive.org/index.php and then entering >>www.bbc.co.uk in the "Wayback Machine". Click on any of the archived >>links, and instead of seeing the BBC's frontpage you will see "Not >>found" because Demon's web filter has added:
Yes, that's what I see too. Is it a cock-up, or has someone at Demon decided that, as one or more of the archived pages at the site contain paedophilic images (assuming that to be the case), the site itself is therefore verboten and /all/ the links on the site must be made inaccessible? -- John Hall "It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information." Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
