Maybe pruning?

[bradrn]

The hosting company should almost certainly keep logs. I can’t remember which one you’re using now… at least for Dreamhost, viewing them seems to be pretty easy, though they only keep 3 days’ worth: https://help.dreamhost.com/hc/en-us/articles/216512197. Running tracepath brings up the name of Bluehost instead, which also keeps access logs.

Right, if this site isn't self-hosted, I don't know what will be visible from the outside.

Well, all those links are to the bits of the documentation explaining how to access them from outside.

OK, got this working. At a glance, they do have a section on ‘Spambot countermeasures’: they seem to mostly be CAPTCHAs of various types. However, the focus is on blocking spam registrations and logins, rather than on blocking viewers. For the latter, I suspect you’ll need to configure things on the hosting provider.

When I Googled this earlier, I found a dizzying array of CAPTCHA-related extensions. IIRC a lot of them change the CAPTCHA type.

Indeed. By default it appears the following ones are available by default:

• Simple image
• GD image
• GD 3D image
• Q&A
• reCaptcha v2
• reCaptcha v3

Of these, it appears Q&A is least invasive: it just asks the user to supply an answer to a predefined question (so you could ask e.g. ‘Name a word class’ with acceptable answers ‘noun’, ‘verb’, etc.). But also, all these plugins are specific to spam registrations: for normal views they don’t do a thing (presumably because you’d normally want the forum to be visible to everyone). This is why I suggested configuring the hosting provider, which might provide functionality for blocking access to the webserver in the first place.

[zompist]

We already use a captcha (the question one), which is why we don't get spammers.

I'm not convinced robots are a problem... if I recall, once someone noticed like 900 robots as guests. But anything is possible.

Edit: as a check, I went over to incatena.org, which of course is static. 75 or 85 guests, as opposed to 25 or 29 here.

[bradrn]

I'm not convinced robots are a problem... if I recall, once someone noticed like 900 robots as guests.

Indeed, it’s right at the bottom of the front page:

Most users ever online was 907 on Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:59 am

[Travis B.]

That's addressing business websites, from a company that wants to sell you security products. We need advice specific to phpBB boards.

I don't even know if logs are kept, or for what. If someone wants to research and tell me exactly what to look for, I'll be happy to. I don't think guesses about robots are much better than my guesses about pruning.

I also very much dislike the idea of outright blocking clients based on client version. E.g. my phone dates back to 2017 - I don't like the idea of having to get a new phone just use the Zeeb on it.

[rotting bones]

We already use a captcha (the question one), which is why we don't get spammers.

I'm not convinced robots are a problem... if I recall, once someone noticed like 900 robots as guests. But anything is possible.

Edit: as a check, I went over to incatena.org, which of course is static. 75 or 85 guests, as opposed to 25 or 29 here.

After a bit of Googling, everyone says the way to fix "too many connections" is to increase the number of connections in MySQL and reload the database. Eg: https://thomas.vanhoutte.be/miniblog/ph ... he%20issue.

If the webhost doesn't allow access to MySQL, then pruning might be the only choice after all.

[rotting bones]

I'm not convinced robots are a problem... if I recall, once someone noticed like 900 robots as guests.

Indeed, it’s right at the bottom of the front page:

Most users ever online was 907 on Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:59 am

Surely the number of connections is a function of both the number of robots and the number of entries they're trying to access?

[bradrn]

I'm not convinced robots are a problem... if I recall, once someone noticed like 900 robots as guests.

Indeed, it’s right at the bottom of the front page:

Most users ever online was 907 on Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:59 am

Surely the number of connections is a function of both the number of robots and the number of entries they're trying to access?

I don’t see why it should be. One visitor = one HTTP request = one connection. (I think?)

[rotting bones]

I don’t see why it should be. One visitor = one HTTP request = one connection. (I think?)

IIRC phpBB opens a new connection to fetch the posts for each page.

[rotting bones]

We already use a captcha (the question one), which is why we don't get spammers.

I'm not convinced robots are a problem... if I recall, once someone noticed like 900 robots as guests. But anything is possible.

Edit: as a check, I went over to incatena.org, which of course is static. 75 or 85 guests, as opposed to 25 or 29 here.

BTW, my support for pruning is based on the assumption that the webhost is highly restrictive. I don't know if it allows these kinds of methods: https://phpbb.hifikabin.me.uk/viewtopic.php?t=110

PS. I'm also assuming the host doesn't let you see which domains the bots are coming from, and blocking them, etc.

[bradrn]

I don’t see why it should be. One visitor = one HTTP request = one connection. (I think?)

IIRC phpBB opens a new connection to fetch the posts for each page.

Ah, I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Raphael]

And there seems to have been some trouble again today.

[Ahzoh]

And there seems to have been some trouble again today.

Ye I keep getting internal server errors

[Travis B.]

And there seems to have been some trouble again today.

Ye I keep getting internal server errors

As do I.

[bradrn]

And me too, although I’m not sure it’s related to pruning.

[zompist]

I've been having trouble too, though it comes and goes. I'll probably have to contact the hosting company (though last time I did, I think they were kind of useless... all they know how to do is restore from backup).

[masako]

I fully support letting anything with more than 2 years of inactivity go away. I think though, if zomp and/or the mods wanted to make a specific "hall of records" for topics that might need/should be kept, that would be cool.

[bradrn]

Now I notice that incatena.org is no longer accessible (‘Site not found · DreamHost’). Very sad, if true.

I fully support letting anything with more than 2 years of inactivity go away. I think though, if zomp and/or the mods wanted to make a specific "hall of records" for topics that might need/should be kept, that would be cool.

We had that in the old forum (for both Languages and Conlangery). I very much liked it, and would be happy to see it return.

[zompist]

Now I notice that incatena.org is no longer accessible (‘Site not found · DreamHost’). Very sad, if true.

Working for me. (It's hosted by another company, in fact Dreamhost. Maybe a glitch on their end.)

[bradrn]

Now I notice that incatena.org is no longer accessible (‘Site not found · DreamHost’). Very sad, if true.

Working for me. (It's hosted by another company, in fact Dreamhost. Maybe a glitch on their end.)

On further testing, it works with HTTP, just not HTTPS.

[Raphael]

I would really prefer it if as much of the ZBB as possible would stay available for as long as possible, but of course if it takes more pruning to keep the ZBB functional, then we need more pruning.