megashare IWF'd in a rather silly way
Wm...
http://www.megashare.com has been IWF'd returning
http://iwfwebfilter.thus.net/error/proxy.html
===
Access Denied (403)
You are attempting to use this server as a web proxy. This is an invalid
use of this server as it is not a web cache proxy.
===
eh? I wasn't trying to use it as a web cache proxy.
http://megashare.com hasn't been IWF'd
Presumably there is something illegal somewhere on megashare but the
page I was trying to access was definitely above board and easily found
by dropping the www.
This isn't an HTTP/1.0 issue as lynx on OpenBSD gets the same results as
Opera9.26 and IE6-and-a-bit on WinXPSP2.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Laurence Hansen
the same for me on Firefox2 on W2kSP4.
Peter Ceresole
> I can't shed any light on this curious behaviour, but it behaves exactly
> the same for me on Firefox2 on W2kSP4.
For what it's worth, the megashare front page opens perfectly well here
in Firefox 1.5, on a Mac, but I get the same access denied message when
I try to access the first-time instructional video.
--
Peter
Roy Brown
<nos...@rdg.ac.uk> writes
Fine here on both IE7 and FF 2.0.0.12/NoScript/Adblock Plus under Vista
Home Premium.
And I can watch the video, too.
--
Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
Wm...
<1idzvd7.ztxh021i2nnlpN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> demon.service Peter
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
do
http://www.megashare.com
http://megashare.com
give you exactly the same behaviour some days later? (They should have
given you different behaviour on Monday if you had been more careful
about the addresses I reported).
The first should give you the 403, the second shouldn't. Getting beyond
the silliness is an exercise for the reader. I'd prefer "certain"
content to be blocked rather than entire domains in silly ways.
Note other replies too. I haven't had a use for megashare since my
report but there are probably a whole lot of people scratching their
heads as to why they can't listen to obscure music or whatever the bulk
of megashare's content is.
Wm...
demon.service Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org>
>Someone's messing with the DNS. Unfortunately you can't just use the IP
>address because it wants HTTP/1.1
Yes, they are messing with the DNS and it is trivial to avoid the
messing. I'm missing the point of the messing as something other than a
temporary measure, I suppose. If there is bad stuff in them thar hills
shouldn't it taken down within a few days and the DNS restored? RoyB
(trusted and I think connecting via some flavour of BT) says he doesn't
have the limitation.
So: is this a demon + iwf weirdness?
Jim Crowther
>do
>http://www.megashare.com
>http://megashare.com
>give you exactly the same behaviour some days later? (They should have
>given you different behaviour on Monday if you had been more careful
>about the addresses I reported).
>
>The first should give you the 403, the second shouldn't. Getting
>beyond the silliness is an exercise for the reader. I'd prefer
>"certain" content to be blocked rather than entire domains in silly ways.
Both work here just fine. IE7 and using Treewalk as a DNS server.
--
Jim Crowther
Wm...
<tQkWdIK2...@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID.invalid> demon.service Jim
Crowther <Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
Nice to hear from you again in d.s, JimC, but I think you are missing
the point somewhat. This is d.s and the issue may be peculiar to demon
and their iwf implementation. It won't matter if someone using
ObscureState.com says it works for them as that isn't the point. I am
just going to remind demon that they have a messed up bit of info from
the IWF for the moment; thank you for the opportunity of doing so,
again.
Jim Crowther
I was merely pointing out (yet again) of how to avoid an ISP's DNS very
efficiently.
--
Jim Crowther