Find a random image on an AOL member’s page.
Retrieve it with a Referer of something other than LiveJournal.com:
% curl -s -i -H "Referer: http://www.livejournalx.com" 'http://hometown.aol.com/dvyfacs/myhome
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Yay, we got the image!
Now try it with LiveJournal:
% curl -s -i -H "Referer: http://www.livejournal.com" 'http://hometown.aol.com/dvyfacs/myhome
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Hey, where’d it go?
...and what can we do about it? :(
I guess it’s their jurisdiction, but it’s a pretty low thing to do, especially because it appears to their users like it’s our fault. More interesting is that other Referers (for example, using evan.livejournal.com) doesn’t trigger it.
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
August 25 2003, 17:05:10 UTC 8 years ago
*sigh*
August 25 2003, 17:50:16 UTC 8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 17:05:37 UTC 8 years ago
Fun, fun, fun.
And now we have a request from an AOL user that suddenly they stopped getting LJ emails. They say AOL did just add some new spam filters, so that may relate.
It almost makes you think that they don't like us...
August 25 2003, 17:17:27 UTC 8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 17:19:26 UTC 8 years ago
What effect will it have on LJ if AOL decides to basically blackball us from their systems? More importantly, what recourse do we have if they decide to do so? I mean, it isn't illegal as far as I know to simply disallow e-mail, image linking, etc. from a certain domain as an ISP.
They've certainly tried to block alternative chat clients like Trillian more than once.
August 25 2003, 17:24:05 UTC 8 years ago
But they've pulled this before with other sites, and in my experience, it's not all that harmful to the other sites.
LiveJournal is big enough and strong enough that it could survive with no AOLers. Plus, it's not trying to make as much money as possible by any means.
So, if some AOLers leave, where's the big harm? LiveJournal will continue and still be popular.
Personally, if I were an AOLer (which I'd never be, I admit), I'd be furious at them for cutting off some of my services without telling me. But that's up to individual AOLers to decide. And for them to decide if they want to take action against their ISP for it.
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 17:38:32 UTC 8 years ago
The image you pasted loaded just fine.
August 25 2003, 17:41:37 UTC 8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 17:52:50 UTC 8 years ago
Poopie-bears to CompuServe!
August 27 2003, 11:48:31 UTC 8 years ago
August 25 2003, 17:56:25 UTC 8 years ago
August 25 2003, 18:08:45 UTC 8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 18:17:42 UTC 8 years ago
August 26 2003, 05:54:51 UTC 8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
Deleted comment
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 18:37:39 UTC 8 years ago
I have a Perl to Win32 exe compiler license (ActivePerl), so this is all really like 20 lines or so. Mac OS X and Linux can just run the Perl.
Evan, Whitaker... we can work on this tomorrow.
August 25 2003, 18:48:26 UTC 8 years ago
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 18:45:12 UTC 8 years ago
Haven't thought through this too much, but...
1. Set up a system to proxy image requests (let's call it imageproxy),
2. Before serving up a LiveJournal page that links to an image on an AOL server, re-write the image URL to be something like http://imageproxy.livejournal.com/get/R
3. Have the proxy strip out any referer headers (which I've never set up but am assuming is possible).
Downsides:
1. Easily defeated by AOL -- block all requests from imageproxy.
2. The LJ network is now consuming more bandwidth by sucking down all these AOL images and then serving them to your users.
3. Others?
Upsides:
1. Transparent to users (e.g. they wouldn't have to modify URLs to their images).
2. Makes AOL images viewable to LJ users (i.e. solves the original problem).
Thoughts?
August 25 2003, 18:47:34 UTC 8 years ago
August 25 2003, 18:48:19 UTC 8 years ago
August 25 2003, 19:19:00 UTC 8 years ago
the time for playing "cowboys" is long since past...
Am I the only person who thinks "so what"?All of the free hosting services have blocked remote loading of images. Why? Because of the massive drain on their servers that LJ has posed. Sure, they blocked remote loading to anywhere, but it was still done mostly because of LJ users.
I think that going off half-cocked and helping users be able to circumvent AOL's ban on remote-loading to LJ will only serve to disintegrate any notion that this is a legitimate business run by an intelligent and legitimate businessman (Brad). Instead, the owner and his employees, not to mention the users, will look like a bunch of hacker hoodlum degenerates who want nothing more than to "screw the man" and "hack the planet".
If AOL wants to block remote loading from LJ, let them. It's their perogative as a business. When users come to us asking why their images won't load, explain to them that AOL is blocking images from remote loading to LJ and to request further information from their higher level tech support people as to why. That's the sensible, business-minded route.
August 25 2003, 19:26:15 UTC 8 years ago
Re: the time for playing "cowboys" is long since past...
There are some merits to that.The difference between free sites blocking remote loading and AOL doing so is that the AOL users are paying for a service they are not receiving.
But really, they should be complaining to AOL and either demanding the services they paid for or finding a new ISP. It is, of course, up to each individual what they choose to do.
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
Deleted comment
8 years ago
Deleted comment
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 20:33:08 UTC 8 years ago
URL shortening sites might solve your problem.
There are a pile of URL shortening services out there, and a referrer from there should solve your problem, correct?The Yahoo directory on this, along with CPAN's WWW::Shorten which is an interface to a pile of these sites.
That should solve the problem, at least in the short term, but then yes, it's an arms race.
--jay
August 26 2003, 04:43:45 UTC 8 years ago
Re: URL shortening sites might solve your problem.
I don't think this can work. When a server responds with a “redirect” response the client requests the new URL using the same referrer as the initial request, since redirecting isn't really referring, it's saying “actually, what you're looking for is over here…”
August 25 2003, 22:23:02 UTC 8 years ago
August 25 2003, 22:35:52 UTC 8 years ago
this isn't the only thing that AOL has been up to recently either. it seems they've completely blocked all email from a particular hosting company, and ignored a temporary restraining order requiring them to stop the blocks. more on this can be found at http://www.hostreview.com/news/news/030
8 years ago
August 25 2003, 23:49:57 UTC 8 years ago
AOL is seen on Wall Street as "training wheels" to the Internet. Most people don't need or want training wheels any more. People are switching to high speed connections and AOL's relatively poor content isn't worth keeping for the price they charge. So if it makes anybody feel better, they are likely not going to be the biggest kid on the block for too many more years.
August 26 2003, 09:43:03 UTC 8 years ago
August 26 2003, 00:00:36 UTC 8 years ago
August 26 2003, 07:41:20 UTC 8 years ago
THat is exactly why your background won't show up. I asked about my pictures not showing up on the Compuserve forums and they are clueless basically. But someone did post the link to this thread. I say we all contact AOL/CS and complain. Everything works fine on my Blurty and my mindsay journals. It's just here that things don't work.
8 years ago
August 26 2003, 09:48:48 UTC 8 years ago
Speaking from experience, AOL has a tendency to pull shit like this. I can think of several occasions where they decided all Earthlink email was spam. One time it started with the dialup users, so I could see it as a script going awry at first, but then it expanded to everyone on the earthlink.net domain, and that was kinda wacky. I seem to remember something similar happening at another isp I worked for, that did hosting. Once it was email, but a few times it was blocked sites.
Every time, the blocking didn't last for more than a few days. A few calls from angry Abuse departments at other ISPs, a couple hundred calls from their own users, maybe the threat of a lawsuit or two, and they bring it down and never admit they did it in the first place. This situation could be different, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it blew over like that.
August 26 2003, 14:59:42 UTC 8 years ago
I'm still annoyed enough that I'm leaving AOL and moving all my images over to a paid domain instead.
August 26 2003, 21:54:59 UTC 8 years ago
Good move.
8 years ago
8 years ago
8 years ago
August 27 2003, 00:52:01 UTC 8 years ago
August 27 2003, 07:15:54 UTC 8 years ago
August 27 2003, 10:07:39 UTC 8 years ago
Is it safe to assume that those using mywebpage.netscape.com (because they're affiliated with AIM users) is also a part of this blocking? I have my images there and mine aren't loading either.
Jennilee
August 27 2003, 10:10:08 UTC 8 years ago
August 27 2003, 12:39:35 UTC 8 years ago
August 27 2003, 16:11:19 UTC 8 years ago
8 years ago
August 28 2003, 14:56:50 UTC 8 years ago
I work in a computer store, and part of my job is garnering AOL signups (much as I loathe AOL). If you could see all the responses I get when I mention signing up for a free trial offer of AOL as we're instructed to, your heads would spin. Believe me. I could spend my whole shift asking people, and only get one or two signups, if that. Their PR sucks royally.
I believe that if AOL's trying to stifle its biggest competition by conveniently blocking image loading while it plans to come out with its own journal service, it's starting to turn into another Microsoft.
August 29 2003, 16:44:29 UTC 8 years ago
Easy to fix.. "liveimage" service.
if (!$url) { header("Location: $url"); } else { die("No URL Specified"); } ?>Simple, removes headers. You could even implement this directly into LiveJournal code with a simple regex.
youd do http://liveimage.livejournal.org/?url=h
Simple, and fixes your problem completley.
October 26 2003, 05:11:51 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Easy to fix.. "liveimage" service.
When you do a Location forwarder from PHP, it sometimes will send referrer tags. Same can be said for Perl, as well as any other web scripting language. The only TRUE way to go around this is to preform a GET procedure, grab the image, then paste its raw data.August 29 2003, 17:50:50 UTC 8 years ago
There I am, reading Slashdot, when what do I see but...
Hopefully, this public discussion of the problem will result in something from AOL. I guess we'll just have to see...
A.C.
******
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →