|
|
Posted by Barry Margolin on 12/31/38 11:39
In article <3prhu1dsngqehg4gk2sis1mm57a0hkc9sn@4ax.com>,
Phil Earnhardt <pae@dim.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:13:22 +0100, "Barbara de Zoete"
> <trashbin@pretletters.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:07:28 +0100, ray <datasmog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There are applications that enable you to download entire static
> >> websites without actually visiting them. WebGrabber and SiteSucker come
> >> to mind.
> >
> >I very much dislike to see someone using those applications on my site.
> >Downloading over a hundred pages and all that comes with them in a short
> >time, for what? I'm sure the one who does that is not going to read all
> >the stuff that just got downloaded, which means it is just a waste of
> >bandwidth.
> >If I spot the same IP doing that more than once (yup, there are those
> >people) or if I notice that it is a commercial enterprise that does that,
> >the IP gets banned. I wish there was a way to block these grabbers
> >altogether.
>
> I can't imagine how you would categorically block them. OTOH, the
> Robots Exclusion Protocol can be used to tell anyone who honors such
> things that you don't want your website copied.
I wouldn't expect a manual download application to honor it. That
mechanism is intended to control automated web crawlers, like the ones
that Google uses to index all of the web.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|