TulipChain/6.02

I am currently faced with the situation where I really have no idea what to about. I've been checking logs for our site and found this:
TulipChain/6.02 (http://ostermiller.org/tulipchain/) Java/1.4.2_01 (http://java.sun.com/) Windows_XP/5.1 RPT-HTTPClient/0.3-3 As the user Agent string.

so I did some research on this user agent and from what I've been able to find its some tool that DMOZ Editors USE TO CHECK FOR VALIDATION/Existence OF A WEBSITE submited or listed in Open Directory Project.

About two month ago we have written scripts to prevent unauthorized access to the bots that have Java/1.4.2_01 in a user agent string due to some bad actions of our of competitors.

So when TulipChain/6.02 came to visit it got 2(two) 410 responses, AKA 410-Gone. But in reality the website is functiong very well. We have submitted to DMOZ a while ago and were in line I guess to get the listing. So I went to check the Directory where we have submitted to,(a week ago there was 2 dead links – now gone). The Editor in “charge” of the categoty is no longer reach-able – it has become an editor link there. The IP Address where this USER came from traces back to .EDU in Arizona.

SO, If it was an Editor from ODP trying to view website, he kind of got his IP Address Banned and I feel so sorry about it. We did not do this on purpose. Is there a way for us to find out what we should next in this situation.

I understand that the forum to request the Status(ODP) was closed on 25th on MAY of this year and there is no way for us to check on the status, wether we got rejected or not.

we have submited our site to: http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Jewelry/Bead_and_Gemstone/Amber/, I believe the editor was "cordlesskettle" or something like that.

Any Help would be greatly appreciated. I would gladly provide the URL of the website as soon as requested.


Thank you.

Well, I'm not going to get into the specifics of your site, and will only give general advice.

Banning anything from coming into your site has its advantages and disadvantages which you need to weigh up when you set that up.

That having been said, while we have a lot of automated tools to help us in our work, the intent is that we never 100% rely on the tool to make a decision. Often the tools will merely bring things to our attention which we then should go in and verify. This is in line with our whole "humans do it better" philosophy.

I can't assure you with 100% certainty that this happened - I don't know how other editor's minds work when they are working through reviewing submissions. But it is more than likely that it didn't get deleted purely on that basis.

If you are in any doubt, please make one more submission of the site URL to the same category.

he kind of got his IP Address Banned

Click to expand...

kind of?

Nothing negative nor possitive happened to your site. Except that one less editor can review it now.

I just removed the entry in DB for that IP Address. However, I left the entry for the "Java" in a user agent String part and it now should return 403, instead of 410. I did not mean to Block the Users IP. It’s just a precaution step we take, please understand.

Thank you for looking into this.

ishtar said:

kind of?

Nothing negative nor possitive happened to your site. Except that one less editor can review it now.

Click to expand...

So that explains some of the unconfirmed 403s from our automated tools....

Interesting - I wonder how many other people have put in user agent blocks.

Anyway - that's why humans and/or editors do it better.

Please understand, I don't do it for fun or to limit someone’s ability to access our web site. I just wanted to protect the Asset, there is all to it. I truly believe that I've spent 2 years on building online presence for my website and has yet failed to solve the technical issue. If something needs to be done for PEOPLE that have interest in our products or services we are always there to help and answer any questions regarding. I am a small business owner who wears 50 different hats(none of them are of a very dark color thought). These days it is like having a B-Bat in your Mortar Store.


Thank you for your Help All.

No, we actually do understand. Many of us had just never thought of that and had wondered why that particular tools occasionally provided an incorrect response.

Now we know, and some of us are amused.

Thank you for your undestanding.
I have unblocked the IP Address of Editor or the computer where the program resides (xxx.xxx.xxx.x88). If there is any other Issues that we should know of, please let us know and we are always there to help, at any time.

It'll happen again. Just unblock the agent.

- kctipton -

<cfset ua="#cgi.HTTP_USER_AGENT#">
<cfsilent>
<cfloop query="ban_ip_or_ua_string"><cfif Find('#ban_ip_or_ua_string.ua_string_part_string#','#ua#')>
<cfif Not Find('#cgi.REMOTE_USER#','xxx.xxx.xxx.x88')>
.................................................................................and so long......


Most of the User Agents are very welcome, as a matter of fact every one is and it radiates unparalleled elegance...

<cfset ua="#cgi.HTTP_USER_AGENT#"> can be re-written as

<cfset ua=cgi.HTTP_USER_AGENT>

The way you're doing it causes the CGI.HTTP_USER_AGENT to be evaluated to a string and then the variable set to that string value. The "Best Practice" way simply sets one variable to the same value as another.

Here's one such discussion of it. http://cfdj.sys-con.com/read/42002.htm

Sorry to hijack the thread.