[bairy]

Are page views on this forum tracked?

I know ips are logged when you post, and I know phpbb doesn't track hits on it's base install, but is anything installed that can track.

It'll be interesting to figure out the ips of the people from the Mail (admittantly difficult) and see exactly what they're reading, how often etc.

[Esqui]

I can find out IPs of who is currently online (including guests) and see IPs of people who post, as well as other IPs they have posted from and people who have posted from the same IP.

As far as I know, there's no tracking on here. If I could find out the IPs of people at Mail Towers, then....

[Adrian]

I can find out IPs of who is currently online (including guests) and see IPs of people who post, as well as other IPs they have posted from and people who have posted from the same IP.

As far as I know, there's no tracking on here. If I could find out the IPs of people at Mail Towers, then....

It said in the Private Eye recently that a user with an IP address in Mail-land edited out bits of Amanda Platell's Wikipedia entry. Could you get any IP information out of looking at the edit history of the article?

[bairy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Platell
It reads like they were doing it from home, I doubt the DM offices use NTL.

Looking at the history pages, 62.255.105.7 , 62.255.104.87, 62.255.116.161, 195.234.243.2

Those are ntl ips. Assuming private eye is right, that'll be our graffitti'er

[Esqui]

Apparently, the IP of dailymail.co.uk is 84.53.138.26

I have no idea if that's correct

[bairy]

Okay I looked more. The 62. addresses are in Brentford.

One of the edits was 195.234.243.2 = Resolve Host: proxy1.associated.co.uk
.. someone's been naughty from work. Edit: I looked again, this is an edit on another topic. But still, it gave me the lead to look for ips.

I dug further:

inetnum: 195.234.240.0 - 195.234.243.255
netname: ASSOCIATED-NEWSPAPERS-LTD

So Associated own
195.234.240.*
195.234.241.*
195.234.242.*
195.234.243.*

A total of 1000 or so ips. Nice.




Lets see what they've been upto:

One such edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =155274044

The stuff in yellow was added. The stuff in green was changed afterwards.

Some was "unedited" as you can see.
The this NTL ip edited it again.
It was unedited again and, for a third time, NTL ip put in that Amanda was an "immigrant". It's now being removed again.


This is fun, and I have more:
these are all the edits done by any ip at Associated

[bairy]

Apparently, the IP of dailymail.co.uk is 84.53.138.26

I have no idea if that's correct

I have the mail as 213.160.98.167 but it doesn't matter either way. The website could be hosted elsewhere to the ips allocated to the DM offices.

[merk]

heh heh

I've just checked the log files. Looks like they come here quite often.

at least 10-12 visits a day in fact, from ip 195.234.243.2 which their gateway/proxy.

I'm just grep-ing the last 12 months access logs for their range then I'm going to bung it into a logfile analyser.

[sinnikal]

Merk, if this 'secret' forum is going to be effective it really should be made 'invitation only', or at least by 'vetted application' only.
I assume you're able to check whether the Mail lurkers are registered?
Just a thought, but a couple of other forums I use have such a system in place and it seems to work rather well.
The levels of paranoia shown by the Mail lackeys seem to indicate such a course of action to be desirable.

[merk]

I tend to agree. but this is Chris' baby so I'll let him decide what he wants to do.

[bairy]

I wonder who's actually visiting.

If they're all using the gateway then it could be anyone from upper management to someone in the copy room.

Be cool if someone could "accidently leak" policy documents to us.

[Chris S]

It doesn't take much to register, so I would advise the 'invitation' route if it's possible.

[sinnikal]

It shouldn't be too difficult to arrange via PM's.
That's how it's worked on other forums.
I know it all seems a bit elitist and exclusive, but if it isn't there's not really much point in trying to keep it at all private.
It would obviously create a bit of work for admin but I think it boils down to whether we think we're doing any greater good or just havin' a laugh.
I personally think it could develop into something worthwhile, but hey, I'm an early retired lazy bastard stoner with too much time on his hands so what do I know

[JuanTwoThree]

I must say that the number of views that this "private forum" is getting suggests that limiting it to active/ist members might be safer for plotting anything dastardly, useful or subversive.

[Paul]

It's a bit spooky in here, does GCHQ know about this?