Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:02:47 -0500 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDStats - What is involved ... ? Message-ID: <20060828130247.GA77702@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20060826165209.V82634@hub.org> References: <20060825233420.V82634@hub.org> <20060826112115.GG16768@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060826132138.H82634@hub.org> <200608261848.16513.max@love2party.net> <20060826165209.V82634@hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:08:57PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Max Laier wrote: >=20 > >fetch(3) makes use of a couple of environment vars to set proxy and=20 > >authentification - this should be reuseable. I haven't looked at=20 > >BSDStats yet, but if you use fetch - just make sure you have the ENV and= =20 > >things work. >=20 > Anyone with an Authenticated Proxy able to code up a patch for this? >=20 > >I guess the easiest way, would be an email to root@ which can be=20 > >forwarded to you. This way you can enable it by default and the=20 > >operator can still decide if they want to take part in the process. >=20 > Actually, email would provide no ability to do the 'request-challenge'=20 > that we have currently implemented in an effort to *reduce* (although I= =20 > know it won't eliminate) ppl "spamming" the system ... the authenticated= =20 > proxy issue, IMHO, doesn't negate the r-c system, since we aren't basing= =20 > anything, *except* country, on the IP itself ... >=20 > So, although using http won't allow *all* hosts to participate, our hope= =20 > is that it will provide enough numbers with suitable checks-n-balances as= =20 > to make the #s viable, and realistic ... While I understand (or think I understand) the motivations for this design goal, it's contrary to allowing collection of statistics from many people. I'd love to be able to publish data from the FreeBSD systems (300+) at work, but unless I can do it in an anonymized aggregate form it's not going to happen. I just can't justify leaking that much internal configuration information given a policy of hiding it (right or wrong and not subject to debate). If I could run my own stats server and publish from it that might be possible. -- Brooks --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE8ul2XY6L6fI4GtQRAly/AJ9XzZJ8kPsQaXa7vOaNuUrlAVAcjgCeJdE5 jNedijNYyEEEY/nmapDubQ4= =LHlg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060828130247.GA77702>