|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 100 post(s) |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
89
   |
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Jim Luc wrote:By the way, is there any way we can put an end to the endless "Player Transfer" phishing spam? I've been getting lots of it and forward each to [email protected] - usually it all goes to the trash anyways. I generally don't even click any links in an Eve-related email, even if it's from CCP. They're offering free time but I won't take their survey simply because I don't trust any emails from ccp or related anymore. Is there a way we can determine if an email link is authentic, and each email that's sent from CCP also be accessible via logging into our accounts without clicking through a link? It would be nice to see all CCP correspondence, even marketing & such, in our Account Settings pages. Just a thought - keep up the tremendous work Sreegs! I'll look into this. I hadn't thought of it actually and I think it's a good idea. Unfortunately we don't own The Internet so we can't stop people from sending mails. We're working on the problem but there's no really easy solution given the technology involved.
CCP has already done something so you can tell if an e-mail is from an authorized sender:
eveonline.com descriptive text "v=spf1 mx ip4:87.237.32.0/24 ip4:87.237.38.0/24 ip4:87.237.37.32/28 ip4:87.237.39.0/24 mx:mail.global.frontbridge.com mx:ymir.ccpgames.com include:spf.frontbridge.com -all"
This is a "Sender Preferred From" record and includes all the addresses authorized to send e-mail as eveonline.com under any circumstances. The -all at the end means you reject any mail that doesn't match.
Not all mail providers use it, but it's there. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
89
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Tyke Orlieveit wrote:
Stupid question: Simply signing the email content with a Publicly available PGP/GPG key is out of the window I guess? The recipient isn't affected by this, and the people with the capability or desire can confirm the signature?
I guess formatting issues might be a hurdle, I've not really experimented with anything but plain-text email being signed though.
What percentage of people do you suppose would actually use that? It's certainly feasible but adoption rates are abysmal out in the world.
Debian signs their security announcements.
They are completely accessible to people not using PGP/GPG and are authenticated for people who are using them. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
90
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Tyke Orlieveit wrote:
Stupid question: Simply signing the email content with a Publicly available PGP/GPG key is out of the window I guess? The recipient isn't affected by this, and the people with the capability or desire can confirm the signature?
I guess formatting issues might be a hurdle, I've not really experimented with anything but plain-text email being signed though.
What percentage of people do you suppose would actually use that? It's certainly feasible but adoption rates are abysmal out in the world. Debian signs their security announcements. They are completely accessible to people not using PGP/GPG and are authenticated for people who are using them. Yeah I know some people sign their emails, what I'm saying is given the work that would go into implementing such a system how many people would actually gain benefit from it. PGP signing adoption rates are terrible or were at least the last time I checked.
True, I'd be surprised if the Debian security mailing list had more than a few thousand subscribers, and that may include everyone who uses GPG who isn't on FreeBSD. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
91
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 23:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Good job banning bots, though. It's just a pity this wasn't done before the whole bot-fueled supercap armsrace.
I'm actually going to be a bit surprised if any nullsec alliances are seriously impacted by this, despite the rumors that have run rampant for years.
But if the rumors are *true* it might open up some nice opportunities. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
94
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Chris Wheeler wrote:
This reads like a left-wing political commentary. Pro illegal immigration (bots) because the legal citizens(players) don't want to do the work that the illegals are willing to do.
I thought this was the right wing argument?
You can't deport them! They're the cheapest servants I've ever had!
(not fond of either wing, I'll walk TYVM).
Needless to say, the rules are there for a reason, and in the case of botting I would invite anybody who thinks the game is too boring to play to go outside and quit %#$#ting in our sandbox. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
94
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 16:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:I think while it's understandable that we're against botters since they ruin the market it's interesting to see that although there's lots of punishment ideas being waved around noone has mentioned WHY the botters even exist to begin with. If a part of the gameplay can be so simple to be replicated by a software program then shouldn't the focus be on trying to change that aspect of gameplay?
There is no gameplay mechanism that is both easy enough to be fun for ordinary players and too complex to automate.
In fact, gameplay complexity can reach a point where it becomes hard enough that people who wouldn't normally be tempted to use a bot because something was boring are tempted because it is too difficult otherwise.
When it comes to games, a program running on your computer:
1. can see what is going on better than you can.
2. has perfect reaction time
3. has infinite patience
4. Can react to queues that the client deliberately hides from players.
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
96
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 14:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:CCP Stillman wrote:
Additionally, I'd like to point out that while the bot might not disappear over night after being reported, it is really important that you guys keep reporting bots. I won't go into details why, but rest assured that it's something that you can do to help in the war on bots.
Ok, lets put it in other words: Let us assume I find a bot (a real one) and I report it. That will lead to: that Bot will go, soon (TM). (whatever soon means)?
As someone who doesn't represent CCP in any way I can say what they can't:
Even if you are 100% sure you have flagged a real bot, you could still be wrong.
If it's just some guy with a clever multi-boxing setup (as I have seen done with effectively sticks and string before), it might look to you like a botting operation and be perfectly within the rules despite that.
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
96
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 14:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:Neo Agricola wrote:CCP Stillman wrote:
Additionally, I'd like to point out that while the bot might not disappear over night after being reported, it is really important that you guys keep reporting bots. I won't go into details why, but rest assured that it's something that you can do to help in the war on bots.
Ok, lets put it in other words: Let us assume I find a bot (a real one) and I report it. That will lead to: that Bot will go, soon (TM). (whatever soon means)? As someone who doesn't represent CCP in any way I can say what they can't: Even if you are 100% sure you have flagged a real bot, you could still be wrong. If it's just some guy with a clever multi-boxing setup (as I have seen done with effectively sticks and string before), it might look to you like a botting operation and be perfectly within the rules despite that. You are 100% right, and that is the reason behind that . And I hoped everyone would understand that i mean: "That char is really a bot" and not "I belive it is a bot". Just for clarification...
Let's just say that all of the choice criteria I've seen for identifying a 'bot operation in-game are more likely to flag a perfectly legitimate multi-boxing operation.
Unless you are talking about a case where you were IRL shoulder surfing a fellow player, saw them botting that way, and reported them for it *you were probably wrong*.
And even if you were right, there are reasons (like an ongoing investigation to track down the members of an RMT operation) where a banning for a legitimately identified bot might be delayed for weeks. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
96
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 16:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Par'Gellen wrote:Padme Amidala Naberrie wrote:Yes it does, you just can't accept the answer. You are correct in a way because the answers Sreegs has given us are contradictory and sensless. Most people question such things. In several of his responses he may as well have said "Bing tiddle tiddle bong... Go away."
People who will break the rules of a game will look for any edge of an exception they can use to justify their actions.
While you are probably not one of those people, the answer that would satisfy your curiosity would provide many of them with that sliver of an exception they could use to (at minimum) consume excess CCP customer support resources while trying to get away with it. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
96
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 16:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
Par'Gellen wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:Par'Gellen wrote:Padme Amidala Naberrie wrote:Yes it does, you just can't accept the answer. You are correct in a way because the answers Sreegs has given us are contradictory and sensless. Most people question such things. In several of his responses he may as well have said "Bing tiddle tiddle bong... Go away." People who will break the rules of a game will look for any edge of an exception they can use to justify their actions. While you are probably not one of those people, the answer that would satisfy your curiosity would provide many of them with that sliver of an exception they could use to (at minimum) consume excess CCP customer support resources while trying to get away with it. I understand that completely and that is actually a much better answer and makes me feel a lot better about the whole issue than anything Sreegs has said. Maybe he just got my hairs up due to his mouthfull-of-broken-glass style of customer interaction.
He attempted to communicate that early on, but he speaks "analyst" so it seems it wasn't as clear as it should have been. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|