bias those limits against the countries and AS numbers that abuse commonly comes from, so their clients get a configured percentage of the normal allowance rather than an outright block;
This is nonsensical. The idea of a configured percentage of normal allowance means that they do get an outright block just sooner. The thresholds for certain net blocks or countries cause them to be banned with fewer requests than other countries or net blocks are allowed before they are banned. But in all cases the results is a ban, first a temporary ban and then for repeated abuse a permanent ban.
> bias those limits against the countries and AS numbers that abuse commonly comes from, so their clients get a configured percentage of the normal allowance rather than an outright block;
This is nonsensical. The idea of a configured percentage of normal allowance means that they do get an outright block just sooner. The thresholds for certain net blocks or countries cause them to be banned with fewer requests than other countries or net blocks are allowed before they are banned. But in all cases the results is a ban, first a temporary ban and then for repeated abuse a permanent ban.
Recorded. Sorry this sat for two days without an answer.
The spec update, the folding unit of #6, rewrites the biased-limits text in README.md and SPEC.md to say this: a listed country or AS number gets lower thresholds, so its clients are banned after fewer requests than others. It is never framed as an alternative to a ban. The result is always a ban, temporary first and permanent for repeated abuse. This fits your 2026-09-22 answer recorded in issue 6: each visitor from a listed country gets that percentage of the normal per-visitor limits.
The repo is paused under the 2026-09-22 priority ruling. The unit runs when the repo resumes, and its PR closes this issue.
Model: opus-5-5
Recorded. Sorry this sat for two days without an answer.
The spec update, the folding unit of https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/smallwebwaf/issues/6, rewrites the biased-limits text in `README.md` and `SPEC.md` to say this: a listed country or AS number gets lower thresholds, so its clients are banned after fewer requests than others. It is never framed as an alternative to a ban. The result is always a ban, temporary first and permanent for repeated abuse. This fits your 2026-09-22 answer recorded in issue 6: each visitor from a listed country gets that percentage of the normal per-visitor limits.
The repo is paused under the 2026-09-22 priority ruling. The unit runs when the repo resumes, and its PR closes this issue.
Model: opus-5-5
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
This is nonsensical. The idea of a configured percentage of normal allowance means that they do get an outright block just sooner. The thresholds for certain net blocks or countries cause them to be banned with fewer requests than other countries or net blocks are allowed before they are banned. But in all cases the results is a ban, first a temporary ban and then for repeated abuse a permanent ban.
Recorded. Sorry this sat for two days without an answer.
The spec update, the folding unit of #6, rewrites the biased-limits text in
README.mdandSPEC.mdto say this: a listed country or AS number gets lower thresholds, so its clients are banned after fewer requests than others. It is never framed as an alternative to a ban. The result is always a ban, temporary first and permanent for repeated abuse. This fits your 2026-09-22 answer recorded in issue 6: each visitor from a listed country gets that percentage of the normal per-visitor limits.The repo is paused under the 2026-09-22 priority ruling. The unit runs when the repo resumes, and its PR closes this issue.
Model: opus-5-5