Search Results

Search found 2201 results on 89 pages for 'anti spam'.

Page 18/89 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

• How can I block abusive bots from accessing my Heroku app?

  - by aem

  My Heroku (Bamboo) app has been getting a bunch of hits from a scraper identifying itself as GSLFBot. Googling for that name produces various results of people who've concluded that it doesn't respect robots.txt (eg, http://www.0sw.com/archives/96). I'm considering updating my app to have a list of banned user-agents, and serving all requests from those user-agents a 400 or similar and adding GSLFBot to that list. Is that an effective technique, and if not what should I do instead? (As a side note, it seems weird to have an abusive scraper with a distinctive user-agent.)

  Read the article

• Issue with Godaddy DNS manager

  - by Fischer

  I'm using domains.live.com to setup an email to a domain registered on Godaddy. The domains.live.com configuration page says: Godaddy's DNS manager isn't accepting this string Value: v=spf1 include:hotmail.com ~all it gives an error, something is wrong, either with the string or with the DNS manager and I would like to know how to fix it. Notes: The more information link is dead, Godaddy no longer gives support by email, no Microsoft support

  Read the article

• What is the most time-effective way to monitor & manage threats from bots and/or humans?

  - by CheeseConQueso

  I'm usually overwhelmed by the amount of tools that hosting companies provide to track & quantify traffic data and statistics. I'm equally overwhelmed by the countless flavors of malicious 'attacks' that target any and every web site known to man. The security methods used to protect both the back and front end of a website are documented well and are straight-forward in terms of ease of implementation and application, but the army of autonomous bots knows no boundaries and will always find a niche of a website to infest. So what can be done to handle the inevitable swarm of bots that pound your domain with brute force? Whenever I look at error logs for my domains, there are always thousands of entries that look like bots trying to sneak sql code into the database by tricking the variables in the url into giving them schema information or private data within the database. My barbaric and time-consuming plan of defense is just to monitor visitor statistics for those obvious patterns of abuse and either ban the ips or range of ips accordingly. Aside from that, I don't know much else I could do to prevent all of the ping pong going on all day. Are there any good tools that automatically monitor this background activity (specifically activity that throws errors on the web & db server) and proactively deal with these source(s) of mayhem?

  Read the article

• Bingbot requests from Google IP address

  - by JITHIN JOSE

  We have some suspicious requests to our server, 74.125.186.46 - - [24/Aug/2014:23:24:11 -0500] "GET <url> HTTP/1.1" 200 16912 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)" 74.125.187.193 - - [24/Aug/2014:23:24:12 -0500] "GET <url> HTTP/1.1" 200 20119 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)" As it shows, user-agent shows it is bingbot. But whois data of IP address(74.125.186.46 and 74.125.187.193) shows it is from google servers. So is it Google,Bing or any other content scrappers?

  Read the article

• Getting a lot of postmaster undeliverable notices for non-existent users

  - by Mike Walsh

  I've had my domain (straightpathsql.com) for a few years now. I host my e-mail with Google Accounts for business and have for awhile. ALl of the sudden in the past week I am starting to get a lot of postmaster delivery fail notices from various domains, most of them involving bogus e-mail addresses at my domain ([email protected], for example)... My assumption here is that someone is trying to relay on some other host (not my hosts which are secure through google apps for business, I presume) and there isn't much I can do to stop it. But I just want to make sure there isn't something else I need to be looking at here.. An example delivery fail notice is below.. I know nothing of those addresses below and they look like garbage... (Quick edit: the reason I get these messages is I set myself up as a catch all, so it doesn't matter what e-mail you send a note to at my domain, I'll get it if the account isn't setup... All of the failure messages are sent to bogus addresses on my domain) The following message to <[email protected]> was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 553-'sorry, this recipient is in my badrecipientto list (#5.7.1)' Final-Recipient: rfc822;[email protected] Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure) Remote-MTA: dns; [118.82.83.11] Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 553-'sorry, this recipient is in my badrecipientto list (#5.7.1)' (delivery attempts: 0) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Howard Blankenship <[email protected]> To: omiivi2922 <[email protected]> Cc: Date: Subject: Hi omiivi2922

  Read the article

• Do Spambots have access to unlimited IP addresses?

  - by Reg Gordon

  I have been attacked for weeks by the same spambot trying to brute force the login page. I have a login security module now installed on my Drupal 6 website and it bans on IP after x amount of attempts. It's been going on for ever and I have banned about 1000 IP addresses. Is there any point in me banning on IP due to the spambot having access to unlimited IP addresses or will they run out of them eventually?

  Read the article

• Grapeshot crawler ignoring robots.txt

  - by QF_Developer

  Has anyone come across a crawler called Grapeshot? They are hammering the same page repeatedly on our website. I believe they are looking for ad related keywords, based on previous content ad campaigns. The odd thing is we never ran any such campaigns on the page they are so interested in. We do have only a few pages running AdSense, is this what has attracted Grapeshot? I've added the following declaration to my robots.txt, but they don't seem to be honouring it? User-agent: grapeshot Disallow: / Any ideas on how to block this nuisance crawler? I'm starting to think the best way is by setting up IP rules in IIS?

  Read the article

• How do I deal with content scrapers? [closed]

  - by aem

  Possible Duplicate: How to protect SHTML pages from crawlers/spiders/scrapers? My Heroku (Bamboo) app has been getting a bunch of hits from a scraper identifying itself as GSLFBot. Googling for that name produces various results of people who've concluded that it doesn't respect robots.txt (eg, http://www.0sw.com/archives/96). I'm considering updating my app to have a list of banned user-agents, and serving all requests from those user-agents a 400 or similar and adding GSLFBot to that list. Is that an effective technique, and if not what should I do instead? (As a side note, it seems weird to have an abusive scraper with a distinctive user-agent.)

  Read the article

• How do you determine whether a website is a scam [closed]

  - by Tom

  What's the best way to determine if a website is a scam. For example, at first sight (no pun intended) the following website seems to be legitimate. But the price of the product is suspiciously low (all the reviews point to an RRP of approximately £1000). http://www.maxiargos.com/index.php/asus-zenbook-ux31e-dh72-13-3-inch-thin-and-light-ultrabook-silver-aluminum.html Another indication is the lack of SSL for the checkout page, and lack of useful information in the WHOIS record. Registration Service Provided By: TMDHOSTING Contact: +1.8665325635 Domain Name: MAXIARGOS.COM Registrant: PrivacyProtect.org Domain Admin ([email protected]) ID#10760, PO Box 16 Note - All Postal Mails Rejected, visit Privacyprotect.org Nobby Beach null,QLD 4218 AU Tel. +45.36946676 Creation Date: 09-Nov-2011 Expiration Date: 09-Nov-2012 Domain servers in listed order: ns1.tmdhosting410.com ns2.tmdhosting410.com Administrative Contact: PrivacyProtect.org Domain Admin ([email protected]) ID#10760, PO Box 16 Note - All Postal Mails Rejected, visit Privacyprotect.org Nobby Beach null,QLD 4218 AU Tel. +45.36946676 Technical Contact: PrivacyProtect.org Domain Admin ([email protected]) ID#10760, PO Box 16 Note - All Postal Mails Rejected, visit Privacyprotect.org Nobby Beach null,QLD 4218 AU Tel. +45.36946676 Billing Contact: PrivacyProtect.org Domain Admin ([email protected]) ID#10760, PO Box 16 Note - All Postal Mails Rejected, visit Privacyprotect.org Nobby Beach null,QLD 4218 AU Tel. +45.36946676

  Read the article

• Possible automated Bing Ads fraud?

  - by Gary Joynes

  I run a website that generates life insurance leads. The site is very simple a) there is a form for capturing the user's details, life insurance requirements etc b) A quote comparison feature We drive traffic to our site using conventional Google Adwords and Bing Ads campaigns. Since the 6th January we have received 30-40 dodgy leads which have the following in common: All created between 2 and 8 AM Phone number always in the format "123 1234 1234' Name, Date Of Birth, Policy details, Address all seem valid and are unique across the leads Email addresses from "disposable" email accounts including dodgit.com, mailinator.com, trashymail.com, pookmail.com Some leads come from the customer form, some via the quote comparison feature All come from different IP addresses We get the keyword information passed through from the URLs All look to be coming from Bing Ads All come from Internet Explorer v7 and v8 The consistency of the data and the random IP addresses seem to suggest an automated approach but I'm not sure of the intent. We can handle identifying these leads within our database but is there anyway of stopping this at the Ad level i.e. before the click through.

  Read the article

• What are some internet trends that you've noticed over the past ~10 years? [closed]

  - by Michael

  I'll give an example of one that I've noticed: the number of web sites that ask for your email address (GOOG ID, YAHOO! ID, etc.) has skyrocketed. I can come up with no legitimate reason for this other than (1) password reset [other ways to do this], or (2) to remind you that you have an account there, based upon the time of your last visit. Why does a web site need to know your email address (Google ID, etc.) if all you want to do is... download a file (no legit reason whatsoever) play a game (no legit reason whatsoever) take an IQ test or search a database (no legit reason whatsoever) watch a video or view a picture (no legit reason whatsoever) read a forum (no legit reason whatsoever) post on a forum (mildly legit reason: password reset) newsletter (only difference between a newsletter and a blog is that you're more likely to forget about the web site than you are to forget about your email address -- the majority of web sites do not send out newsletters, however, so this can't be the justification) post twitter messages or other instant messaging (mildly legit reason: password reset) buy something (mildly legit reasons: password reset + giving you a copy of a receipt that they can't delete, as receipts stored on their server can be deleted) On the other hand, I can think of plenty of very shady reasons for asking for this information: so the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. can very easily track what you do by reading your email or asking GOOG, etc. what sites you used your GOOG ID at to use the password that you provide for your account in order to get into your email account (most people use the same password for all of their accounts), find all of your other accounts in your inbox, and then get into all of those accounts sell your email address to spammers These reasons, I believe, are why you are constantly asked to provide your email address. I can come up with no other explanations whatsoever. Question 1: Can anyone think of any legitimate or illegitimate reasons for asking for someone's email address? Question 2: What are some other interesting internet trends of the past ~10 years?

  Read the article

• Huge surge in direct traffic from one particular town

  - by Jack Lockyer

  Last month I noticed that the direct visits on our site have increased by nearly 150% whilst bounce rate is also considerably up. After drilling down further I can see that we have had nearly 2000 direct visits from one town in Connecticut called Stamford, with a bounce rate of 100%! I have been scratching around for answers but I can only find that it may be to do with our uptime monitoring tool; Pingdom. Does anyone know/have any experience with this kind of issue, any help is appreciated I have just noticed that we are receiving identical traffic in a town in England and a town in Scotland... This definitely makes me think it's to do with our uptime monitoring tool.

  Read the article

• What are some potential issues in blocking all incoming requests from the Amazon cloud?

  - by ElHaix

  Recently I, along with the rest of the world, have seen a significant increase in what appears to be scraping from Amazon AWS-related sources. So simply put, I blocked all incoming requests from the Amazon cloud for our hosted application. I know that some good services/bots are now hosted on the cloud, and I'm wondering if certain IP addresses should be allowed, as they may gather data that would in the end benefit our site's SEO rankings? -- UPDATE -- I added a feature to block requests from the following hosts: Amazon Softlayer ServerDeals GigAvenue Since then, I have seen my network traffic decrease (monitored by network out bytes). Average operation is around 10,000,000 bytes. You can see where last week I was not blocking, then started blocking. I've since removed the blocks and will see what the outcome is.

  Read the article

• Chinese bots in my forum

  - by TdotThomas

  I have a small community forum that doesn't really get posts or any real traffic. The only thing that happens on the regular is bots with Chinese IPs signing up gibberish usernames. Most bots don't make it past the captcha but some do. I try to stay on top of this by banning IPs and ranges of IPs but it doesn't really seem to help. The bots never post anything so what are they doing? Should I be worried? Should I keep banning IPs or is it futile?

  Read the article

• We've had our content copied under a different URL - why and what do we do?

  - by Shaun

  We have a problem. We've noticed a large amount of traffic showing up on our Google Analytics. Upon further investigation we have found that we've had our content copied under a different URL. Our site: http://www.targetis.co.uk The coppied site: http://www.target-is.com (isn't showing up with Chrome for us) We don't own this domain. Their content is hosted with them (not via proxy). The large part of the traffic is coming from video hosting site. What do we do?

  Read the article

• ASE reports messages as spam?

  - by Adam

  Outside users are attempting to send to our domain (www.lrffpd.com). It's getting rejected sporatically. All of the senders are getting some variation of the error "Unagi.teksnax.com has rejected the message. This message has been blocked because ASE reports it as spam". The error number varies. -Our firewall is a Fortigate and it runs the built-in Fortigate AntiSpam software. I don't this problem is becuase of the firewall because the error is coming from the server, not the firewall. -On the Exchange 2003 server we run ESET NOD32 for Exchange (only for AntiVirus). We also run the IMF filter built into Exchange. I've NEVER heard of ASE and can't find any information about them. What do you think this could be?

  Read the article

• PHP Mail() to Gmail = Spam

  - by grantw

  Recently Gmail has started marking emails sent directly from my server (using php mail()) as spam and I'm having problems trying to find the issue. If I send an exact copy of the same email from my email client it goes to the Gmail inbox. The emails are plain text, around 7 lines long and contain a URL link in plain text. As the emails sent from my client are getting through fine I'm thinking that the content isn't the issue. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could take a look at the the following headers and give me some advice why the email from the server is being marked as spam. Email from Server: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.49.98.228 with SMTP id el4csp101784qeb; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:58:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.27.166 with SMTP id u6mr2296595oeg.86.1353020331940; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:58:51 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: [email protected] Received: from dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk (dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk. [174.120.246.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id df4si17005013obc.50.2012.11.15.14.58.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:58:51 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) client-ip=174.120.246.138; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass [email protected] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=domainbrokerage.co.uk; s=default; h=Date:Message-Id:Content-Type:Reply-to:From:Subject:To; bh=2RJ9jsEaGcdcgJ1HMJgQG8QNvWevySWXIFRDqdY7EAM=; b=mGebBVOkyUhv94ONL3EabXeTgVznsT1VAwPdVvpOGDdjBtN1FabnuFi8sWbf5KEg5BUJ/h8fQ+9/2nrj+jbtoVLvKXI6L53HOXPjl7atCX9e41GkrOTAPw5ZFp+1lDbZ; Received: from grantw by dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from [email protected]) id 1TZ8OZ-0008qC-Gy for [email protected]; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:58:51 +0000 To: [email protected] Subject: Offer Accepted X-PHP-Script: www.domainbrokerage.co.uk/admin.php for 95.172.231.27 From: My Name [email protected] Reply-to: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251 Message-Id: [email protected] Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:58:51 +0000 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [500 500] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - domainbrokerage.co.uk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk: authenticated_id: grantw/from_h Email from client: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.49.98.228 with SMTP id el4csp101495qeb; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.197.8 with SMTP id iq8mr2351185obc.66.1353020089244; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:54:49 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: [email protected] Received: from dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk (dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk. [174.120.246.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ab5si17000486obc.44.2012.11.15.14.54.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) client-ip=174.120.246.138; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass [email protected] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=domainbrokerage.co.uk; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=bKNjm+yTFZQ7HUjO3lKPp9HosUBfFxv9+oqV+NuIkdU=; b=j0T2XNBuENSFG85QWeRdJ2MUgW2BvGROBNL3zvjwOLoFeyHRU3B4M+lt6m1X+OLHfJJqcoR0+GS9p/TWn4jylKCF13xozAOc6ewZ3/4Xj/YUDXuHkzmCMiNxVcGETD7l; Received: from w-27.cust-7941.ip.static.uno.uk.net ([95.172.231.27]:1450 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from [email protected]) id 1TZ8Ke-0001XH-7p for [email protected]; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: [email protected] Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:54:50 +0000 From: My Name [email protected] User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.6 (Windows/20121031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [email protected] Subject: Offer Accepted Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - domainbrokerage.co.uk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk: authenticated_id: [email protected]

  Read the article

• Spam issues while using Postfix as a two-way relay

  - by BenGC

  I want to use a Postfix box to do two things: Relay mail from any host on the internet addressed to one of my domains to my Zimbra server Relay mail from my Zimbra server to any address on the internet. To try and accomplish this I have configured Postfix thusly: mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8, zimbra_ip/32 myorigin = zimbra_server mydestination = localhost, zimbra_server relay_domains = example.com example.org transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport_map local_transport = error:no mailboxes on this host transport_map looks like this: example.com smtp:[zimbra_server] example.org smtp:[zimbra_server] Now, this works and passes the Open Relay tests. However, I am seeing in the maillog that the server is relaying spam that has a From: address of <> to domains that are not mine. How do I stop this behavior?

  Read the article

• Icinga notifications are being marked as spam when sent to my mailbox

  - by user784637

  I'm using gmail and my domain is foo.com About half the notifications from my icinga server, [email protected] go to my spam folder for [email protected] Received-SPF: fail (google.com: domain of [email protected] does not designate <ip6> as permitted sender) client-ip=<ip6>; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=hardfail (google.com: domain of [email protected] does not designate <ip6> as permitted sender) [email protected] Is my current SPF record set up to allow my icinga server with the ip <ip4> and <ip6> to send email from the domain foo.com? ;; ANSWER SECTION: foo.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:<ip4> ip6:<ip6> -all"

  Read the article

• Gmail flagging emails as spam despite SPF being enabled and working perfectly

  - by Asif

  I have a website where people can recommend contents to their friends using their email. The issue is that emails are being flagged as spam whereas if I do the same from my development machine things are working out fine. I have enabled SPF and it is perfect. When sending through website, the email appears as this in Gmail Inbox: From [email protected] to [email protected]. When I send it from my development machine it appears as : From xyz.com via mywebsite.com to [email protected] mailed by mywebsite.com and this is exactly how I envisioned it. From what little I could figure out by looking at the source of emails in Gmail is that when sending from my development machine Gmail correctly recognizes my domain as mywebsite.com for which SPF is enabled and hence it treats it as genuine email. Whereas Gmail recognizes my domain as [email protected] when sent through the website. Can someone tell me why it does so? Any help would be really appreciated.

  Read the article

• Uncrackable anti-piracy protection/DRM even possible? [closed]

  - by some guy

  I hope that this is programming-related enough. You have probably heard about Ubisofts recent steps against piracy. (New DRM requires a constant connection to the Ubisoft server) Many people including me see this as intolerable because the only ones suffering from it at the end are the paying customers. Now to the actual question(s): Ubisoft justified this by calling this mechanism "Uncrackable, only playable by the paying customers". Is a so called uncrackable DRM even possible? You can reverse-engineer and modify everything, even if it takes long. Isn't Ubisoft already lying by calling something not crackable? I mean, hey - With the game you get all its content (textures, models, you know) and some anti-piracy mechanism hardcoded into it. How could that be "uncrackable"? You can just patch the unwanted mechanisms out ---- "Pirates" play the cracked game without problems and the paying customers are the idiots by having constant problems with the game and being unable to play it without a (working) internet connection. What are the points Ubisoft sees in this? If they are at least a bit intelligent and informed they know their anti-piracy protection won't last long. All they get is lower sales, angry customers and happy pirates and crackers.

  Read the article

• how to access anti aliasing method of a font with CSS

  - by Daniel Ramirez-Escudero

  I've had this problem in a lot of different webs. You have a font which has different anti-aliasing options, the designer uses the same font with different anti-aliasing options on different parts of the text on the web. So there is a difference between some elements. In this case I have sharp, crisp, strong and smooth. I've used a font generator to get the code to access it via @font-face. Even so, I also have the original .otf if important to know. Is there a method to access this? I upload a picture of what I mean and my actual code: ![@font-face { font-family: 'light'; src: url('../_fnt/light/gothamrnd-light.eot'); src: url('../_fnt/light/gothamrnd-light.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'), url('../_fnt/light/gothamrnd-light.woff') format('woff'), url('../_fnt/light/gothamrnd-light.ttf') format('truetype'), url('../_fnt/light/gothamrnd-light.svg#../_fnt/light/gothamrnd-light') format('svg'); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; }]![enter image description here][1]

  Read the article

• Artifacts when trying to draw background grid without anti-aliasing in a QGraphicsScene

  - by estan

  Hi folks, I'm trying to draw a background grid in the drawBackground() function of my QGraphicsScene subclass: void Scene::drawBackground(QPainter *painter, const QRectF &rect) { const int gridSize = 50; const int realLeft = static_cast<int>(std::floor(rect.left())); const int realRight = static_cast<int>(std::ceil(rect.right())); const int realTop = static_cast<int>(std::floor(rect.top())); const int realBottom = static_cast<int>(std::ceil(rect.bottom())); // Draw grid. const int firstLeftGridLine = realLeft - (realLeft % gridSize); const int firstTopGridLine = realTop - (realTop % gridSize); QVarLengthArray<QLine, 100> lines; for (qreal x = firstLeftGridLine; x <= realRight; x += gridSize) lines.append(QLine(x, realTop, x, realBottom)); for (qreal y = firstTopGridLine; y <= realBottom; y += gridSize) lines.append(QLine(realLeft, y, realRight, y)); //painter->setRenderHint(QPainter::Antialiasing); painter->setPen(QPen(QColor(220, 220, 220), 0.0)); painter->drawLines(lines.data(), lines.size()); // Draw axes. painter->setPen(QPen(Qt::lightGray, 0.0)); painter->drawLine(0, realTop, 0, realBottom); painter->drawLine(realLeft, 0, realRight, 0); } However, unless I turn on anti-aliasing, moving items around will sometimes leave artifacts in the grid (areas where it's not drawn). It seems it mostly happens at low zoom levels, when the view is zoomed out a bit. Any ideas what I might be doing wrong here? I'd really don't want to turn anti-aliasing on since the lines are strictly horizontal and vertical, and I'd like them to be as crisp as possible. Any help is much appriciated, Regards, Elvis

  Read the article

• How do I stop Sophos anti virus from scanning directories that are under source control

  - by user26453

  From googling it seems its well known that SophosAV as well as other AV programs have issues with how they interact and can inhibit source control utilities like TortoiseHG or TortoiseSVN. One solution is to exclude directories under source control from on-access scanning as detailed here on Sophos's support site. There is a corollary article that mentions some issues related to this, namely the need to place multiple entries for exclusions based on the possibility of the location being accessed through the short vs. long name (e.g., Progra~1 vs. "Program Files"). One other twist is I am using a junction to relocate my user directory, C:\Users\Username, to a second hard drive, E:. Since I am not sure how this interacts I have included the source control directory as they are nested in both locations. As a result, I have included the two exclusions for the on-access scanning exclusions (and to be on the safe side on-demand exclusions as well, although this should only come into play when I select a parent directory of the exclusion to be scanned on-demand, but still). You'll notice I have no need to add extra exclusions for those locations based on short vs. long name distinctions. The two exclusion I have then, for both on-access and on-demand scanning exclusions are: C:\Users\Username\source-control-directory E:\source-control-directory However, this does not seem to work as TortoiseHG still lags terribly in response to any request as AV software starts scanning when the directory is accessed via TortoiseHG. I can verify without a doubt that Sophos is causing the problems: I can completely disable on-access scanning. Once this is done TortoiseHG responds very fast to all operations. I cannot leave this disabled obviously, but since the exclusion don't seem to be working, what next?

  Read the article

• Anti-Rootkit programs

  - by Terry

  What program do you use for detecting Rootkits? How do you know what to trust?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >