i don't understand how a handful of crackmes can be responsible for this traffic either, it has to be something else. someone brute forcing levels ?

Hello

I think traffic could be reduced, but only a little bit. Let's say I put everything, even any single JavaScript-Function and CSS-Style in seperate files; this won't change the situation very much.
I'm especially annoyed because our webspace-company said in there offer that users could use any amount of traffic; unlimited. But now they say it's too much...
By the way we are paying 5 € every month...

But luckily we found a new company which offers even more for 5 €. They don't say that they have unlimited traffic, but they say that we can use 50 GB without any problems. Therefore we will move to them.

bye, Erik

Hm... interesting mic!
I thought all the time that the :hover-subclass would only be allowed for links?

50Gb traffic is a lot, if it doesn't work out for you for some reason then you might want to check out the 4U here:
http://www.tera-byte.com/hosting.html

but all this is besides the point...they should be pissed off at the company for saying they have unlimited and now saying they have to leave...thats crap.

our current hoster is really not good. the biggest problem is that our log files that we get are really bad and it is hard to figure out if someone bruteforced. our new hoster will be better.

Erik,

All browsers with a decent CSS implementation should be able to do this (the td:hover)... In CSS2, it only notes in the example of use in A tags, but in theory (and certainly here) it seems to work... I've even seen a textarea:hover, probably due to an error in coding. The CSS2 specs mention this as new functionality from the previous version (1). [[]link[]] But nonetheless, is runs a lot faster in CSS than JavaScript, and uses less code.