Image Policy Change

hohum · Post Post #96 (isolation #0) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:44 am

chamber,

Is it possible to change the [img] tag behavior so that when images are hotlinked, the file is downloaded, stored in a directory on the server and the URL is rewritten? That (IMHO) is the best solution to this problem.

hohum · Post Post #98 (isolation #1) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:35 am

In post 97, UberNinja wrote:I thought the idea was not to use MS's storage or bandwidth ^

Is that a joke? Because it reads like a joke.

hohum · Post Post #105 (isolation #2) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:57 am

In post 102, UberNinja wrote:Well if hohum wants to pay for the extra bandwidth, I'm not exactly against the idea. It's just a waste of resources.

Why not set up a script that will load all images to imgur.com instead? ... I'm sure one could be found/written.

Things on imgur tend to go *poof*

That's why.

You guys couldn't run me out of bandwidth if you tried.

hohum · Post Post #108 (isolation #3) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:05 am

In post 107, animorpherv1 wrote:Alternatively, photobucket things don't go poof, I think.

Yeah they do.

hohum · Post Post #110 (isolation #4) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:08 am

We're not currently hosting any photos and we have no control over contented hosted externally. Part of the reason I'm enthused about this idea is it gives us a guarantee that content within threads can be delivered at the same speed as the threads themselves. Also the whole *poof* thing.

hohum · Post Post #111 (isolation #5) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:09 am

The Internet is a Best Effort service.

hohum · Post Post #114 (isolation #6) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:11 am

It's not really a bold statement. This network is partially designed to deal with DDoS attacks. About the only way you could knock the site off line is if you generated a DDoS attack in excess of 10Gbit/sec

hohum · Post Post #116 (isolation #7) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:14 am

In post 115, UberNinja wrote:In my experience, things on MS go *poof* more than anything on imgur ever has.

I'd prefer not to have the stuff I post here hosted here, if I have a choice. m2c

If you're genuinely worried about it then stop posting.

Actually, just stop posting.

hohum · Post Post #117 (isolation #8) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:16 am

In post 114, hohum wrote:It's not really a bold statement. This network is partially designed to deal with DDoS attacks. About the only way you could knock the site off line is if you generated a DDoS attack in excess of 10Gbit/sec

That's not to say an attack of that magnitude isn't outside of the realm of possibility. In fact it's quite doable. But the point is the traffic would need to be entirely malicious before it became a problem.

hohum · Post Post #119 (isolation #9) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:20 am

In post 118, UberNinja wrote:
In post 116, hohum wrote:If you're genuinely worried about it then stop posting.

How the hell would that help.

You wouldn't lose your precious internet forums posts if you stopped making them. Duh.

hohum · Post Post #120 (isolation #10) » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:22 am

The shit hosted here isn't going anywhere dude. The last time there was data loss it was a fluke.

hohum · Post Post #125 (isolation #11) » Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:24 am

I'm tired of trying to justify outages. If we're going to get shit all over by people like UN for providing a free service, then so be it. Yes, UN. We're terrible people.

hohum · Post Post #128 (isolation #12) » Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:14 am

Feel free to upload images to imgur seperately all you want. If we redowoad those images and they go poof chances are the thread will go poof too, so your argument is pretty much moot. If you don't want content hosted here for copyright reasons then you should not be posting it on public forums anyways. You just like making noise for the sake of making noise.

hohum · Post Post #133 (isolation #13) » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:03 am

I think my solution is pretty elegant, in that we wouldn't need to penalize people for linking images from potentially dangerous places.