tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post115055576549521812..comments2023-12-01T16:56:04.415+11:00Comments on Peak Energy: Cities Are The FutureBig Gavhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-1150881053048431422006-06-21T19:10:00.000+10:002006-06-21T19:10:00.000+10:00Actually, while this theory is a perfectly valid o...Actually, while this theory is a perfectly valid one (assuming Google / Blogger has an office in New Hampshire and use Comcast as their ISP), I think it is actually Netvocates.<BR/><BR/>Other bloggers have commented on the same URL pattern appearing and noted that Netvocates use Comcast in New Hampshire (although they could have got this from my post I guess - in which case I'm indirectly quoting myself).<BR/><BR/>And my alternate theory about the 192.x address is as follows - Netvocates download the page content to their server (which is why I saw my page marked up their "arrca" server the first time I followed back a referral from them, highlighting the words they were interested in, which other people have also noted.<BR/><BR/>The downloaded page (now on their web server) still contains the SiteMeter instrumentation - so it logs the accessing IP address - in this case, on their local network, not the internet.<BR/><BR/>Eventually they'll learn to plug this extra hint and slowly subside into invisibility - and only tinfoil types will complain about paid trolls hanunting blog comments and forums (with the occasional bit of pattern matching used to show similarities between trolls on different blogs)...Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-1150877691798459432006-06-21T18:14:00.000+10:002006-06-21T18:14:00.000+10:00Yes, that explains it. It's not spoofing, the requ...Yes, that explains it. It's not spoofing, the request may have come from behind a NAT at blogger/siteMeter - rather, a direct visit to your site which didn't go through any NAT.<BR/><BR/>192.168 is a small range, class C (only 65535 IP's avaliable). My guess is that an employee at blogger/sitemeter/google visiting your site. Perhaps interested in peak oil, perhaps just interested in some spike in traffic to your site or something... nothing sinister either way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-1150720671941864842006-06-19T22:37:00.000+10:002006-06-19T22:37:00.000+10:00Actually another theory just came to mind which wo...Actually another theory just came to mind which would explain this - the request came from within Google's network.<BR/><BR/>Which would mean that its either nothing to do with Netvocates (but is curious nonetheless), or something quite unsettling is going on. <BR/><BR/>Maybe I should dig up those old stories about the Carlyle group investing in Google and come up with a conspiracy theory (I actually like Google though).Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-1150716012600019222006-06-19T21:20:00.000+10:002006-06-19T21:20:00.000+10:00Well - it certainly wasn't from my network (my own...Well - it certainly wasn't from my network (my own hits don't appear as 192.x - don't forget its Blogger / SiteMeter that get the request) - as you say, it must be some sort of spoofing - but I don't know how to do it.<BR/><BR/>That said, while reverse DNS couldn't find the site, it did exist - when I followed back I didn't get a 404.<BR/><BR/>So there is some sort of trickery happening that I should try to understand one day.Big Gavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682404837426502876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-1150711867252086522006-06-19T20:11:00.000+10:002006-06-19T20:11:00.000+10:00The adress you posted was in the 192.168 range, wh...The adress you posted was in the 192.168 range, which we all know is reserved for internal networks. If you got an incoming connection from that, either someone connected from behind the same NAT as you (unlikely) or there is some sort of spoofing going on... but I don't quite see how that could work, I mean, to see your site they have to supply an address your webserver could ship the page to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com