PDA

View Full Version : Save Bandwidth/Storage With No Uploaded Avatars!

Brinnie
07-24-2005, 12:11 PM
On IPB, you can set it to only allow linked avatars.

Having people host their own avatars on Photobucket or somthing would cut back a great deal of bandwidth and storage.
Bro_Joey_Gowdy
08-02-2005, 11:11 PM
*Rowdy waits for this to be ported over too*

:D
Abe1
08-03-2005, 04:20 AM
In the "Usergroup" options, there is a setting called, "Can Upload Custom Avatars" all you have to do is disable.
Zachery
08-03-2005, 04:43 AM
That doesn't allow them to use remotly linked avatars.

furthermore remotly linked avatars are a security issue in themself with out any valid way to check size (both file size and h&w) nor to veryfiy that its not a dynamic image of some sort of even some php script.
Brinnie
08-03-2005, 09:47 AM
That doesn't allow them to use remotly linked avatars.


furthermore remotly linked avatars are a security issue in themself with out any valid way to check size (both file size and h&w) nor to veryfiy that its not a dynamic image of some sort of even some php script.As I have said on vBulletin.com, IPB has the option to allow/dissalow dynamic images.
Furthermore, it resizes the images to the first border of your maximum dimentions, as specified in the ACP.
Zachery
08-03-2005, 04:40 PM
As I have said on vBulletin.com, IPB has the option to allow/dissalow dynamic images.
Furthermore, it resizes the images to the first border of your maximum dimentions, as specified in the ACP.

So then its increasing overhead load incredibly to meet some sort of false security?

Because to do that effectivly you'd need to check it on every occurnce of where it was going to be used on the page. Ontop of that, theres no saying that a remote image isn't dyanmic just because it has a .gif / jpg / png / bmp extension, webservers can be configurted to run .gif as a php extension :)

To do that on EVERY page load would be insane and a waste of system resources I'd think.
Brinnie
08-03-2005, 09:03 PM
So then its increasing overhead load incredibly to meet some sort of false security?

Because to do that effectivly you'd need to check it on every occurnce of where it was going to be used on the page. Ontop of that, theres no saying that a remote image isn't dyanmic just because it has a .gif / jpg / png / bmp extension, webservers can be configurted to run .gif as a php extension :)

To do that on EVERY page load would be insane and a waste of system resources I'd think.

I dunno, man... You know IPB's has it since 1.2 and 3 years later, they havn't removed it... Must not be that much of a threat. :ermm: