I noticed that, but I get the feeling that sending that status code didn't reduce the amount of work the program did, so it's kind of a pointless. You can say "go away", but at some point, you probably have to make them go away. (All RFC6585 says about 429 is that it MUST NOT be cached, not that the user agent can't try the request again immediately. It is very poorly specified.)
The author mentioned that they were using Cloudflare, and I see at least two ways to implement rate limiting. One is to have your application recognize the pattern of malicious behavior, and instruct Cloudflare via its API to block the IP address. Another is to use their rate-limiting that detects and blocks this stuff automatically (so they claim).
Like, there are many problems here. One is a rate limit that doesn't reduce load enough to serve legitimate requests. Another is wanting a caching service to cache a response that "MUST NOT" be cached. And the last is expecting people on the Internet to behave. There are always going to be broken clients, and you probably want the infrastructure in place to flat-out stop replying to TCP SYN packets from broken/malicious networks for a period of time. If the SYN packets themselves are overwhelming, welp, that is exactly why Cloudflare exists ;)
The author is right to be mad at Facebook. Their program is clearly broken. But it's up to you to mitigate your own stuff. This time it's a big company with lots of money that you can sue. The next time it will be some script kiddie in some faraway country with no laws. Your site will be broken for your users in either case, and so it falls on you to mitigate it.
The author mentioned that they were using Cloudflare, and I see at least two ways to implement rate limiting. One is to have your application recognize the pattern of malicious behavior, and instruct Cloudflare via its API to block the IP address. Another is to use their rate-limiting that detects and blocks this stuff automatically (so they claim).
Like, there are many problems here. One is a rate limit that doesn't reduce load enough to serve legitimate requests. Another is wanting a caching service to cache a response that "MUST NOT" be cached. And the last is expecting people on the Internet to behave. There are always going to be broken clients, and you probably want the infrastructure in place to flat-out stop replying to TCP SYN packets from broken/malicious networks for a period of time. If the SYN packets themselves are overwhelming, welp, that is exactly why Cloudflare exists ;)
The author is right to be mad at Facebook. Their program is clearly broken. But it's up to you to mitigate your own stuff. This time it's a big company with lots of money that you can sue. The next time it will be some script kiddie in some faraway country with no laws. Your site will be broken for your users in either case, and so it falls on you to mitigate it.