371–380 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't understand their argument that a text file 'isn't a web content'; seems like a bullshit excuse.
Does not inspire confidence in Cloudflare, that’s for sure.
This seems the perfect use case for letting a secure BitTorrent tracker share the lists, then either implementing the client in the browser, or having it as a system service that syncs the necessary files.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was never suggested that what the original commenter was doing would help EasyList.
I didn’t say the OP did, though it was implied. I was responding to a comment which did… context, my friend. Edit: so if OP wasn’t implying that their approach was better, what was the point of posting it? Wow, obtuse much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does not inspire confidence in Cloudflare, that’s for sure.
I think CloudFlare pretty explicitly do not want people to be confident that they can serve 2 petabytes a month of API data on the free tier
Because they certainly want to serve some huge amount of traffic for free while they attempt to become the next abusive monopoly platform.
They’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.
A great opportunity right now for CloudFlare to win some goodwill and PR by helping out EasyList for free right now. But what about simply enable a firewall and show captcha or similar if the origin IP is from India and requesting that URL until the situation is under control? I did that with the free plan recently in CloudFlare in a similar situation and it worked perfectly (of course on a much smaller scale).
Wouldn't their R2 service tick all the boxes for this one? https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/pricing/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn’t sound like bullshit to me. Serving a static text file that is primarily used by applications is not in line with their terms of service. Cloudflare provides a significant service to the free and open web by subsidizing the hosting costs of static content for websites. They give that away for free under what appears to be reasonable terms.
But it is web content, really. A txt file renders fine in every browser. Many websites also push text through HTML as part of AJAXy stuff. If they actually enforced this for all sites, their service would no longer be usable.
Just report these bad apps to google playstore, and get them taken down for D.O.S.ing your website. Google playstore will remove them. Trust in the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TOS aren’t referring to content-type headers, magic bytes, TCP headers, browser support of file formats, or any technical implementation. To oversimplify, they’re saying Cloudflare’s service is to be used for serving websites to browsers. Serving a static text file that is primarily used by applications is not in line with their terms of service. Cloudflare provides a significant service to the free and open web…
> I’m not sure why you’re trying to “gotcha” through their ToS. People are doing the opposite, pointing out the hole and asking them to get a better rule. Surely they don't just want the list merely converted into html. > They give that away for free [...] So they should specify things that influence cost such as total bytes served, number of files, etc. Currently all you can do it bypass the rule because you don't k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. The service cloudflare donates isn't free. That is the whole point of EasyList’s post. There are plenty of comments on this submission doing back of napkin math to find a reasonable monthly cost for hosting that text file. If you want to donate that bandwidth - go for it. But the comments here about Cloudflare’s ToS read a lot like folks feeling entitled to getting bandwidth for for free. Cl…
> You're missing the point. You're missing the point. If Cloudflare's issue is with bandwidth, then they should say so and leave it at that, not conjure up this pathetic excuse about .txt files somehow not being "web content". Does wrapping that data in magically fix the bandwidth issues?
I'm not sure this is the most reasonable rule but there are definitely some benificial aspects to it. For example the load on human-viewed content is limited by how often people want to view it. Not how often their browser wants to redownload it.