On 22/05/2012 07:33, Robin wrote:
snip
Thanks for the explanation.
As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP
"194.71.107.15 mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about
the High Court order

Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on
it?

I tried the root and an individual page ("legal" as I thought the
lawyers might want to allow access to the lawyers' missives).

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

That page also hits the bloc

However it could be a fairly crude IP based (or IP address and TCP
port number) block and not anything subtle. (possibly understandable
since the site in question is large enough to need dedicated hosting
and not shared hosting)

and also possibly not too surprising given the High Court reportedly
ordered the ISPs to block the site (ie the whole site).

Yup, my point really being that blocking an IP alone does not always
equate to blocking the whole site. Depending on the scale of the hosting
arrangements for the site in question, it can do anything from blocking
it and hundreds of unrelated sites at the same time, to blocking just
one machine from a whole cluster of servers that ultimately has little
effect on general accessibility.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/