|
23 Nov 06 - 03:29 AM (#1891438) Subject: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: Paul Burke Max: I'm sorry to ressurect this issue, but after the shenanigins of last week, I see we now have a new outbreak of spam from people posting as guest. Earlier this week, I emailed my Member of Parliament about something, using a site writetothem. To block spam, when you post, an automatically generated email is sent, containing a confirmation code, and the post is only completed if this is returned. There must be a time limit, though I don't know how long. This stops machine generated spam, and I feel that while Guests are far more often valuable than not, it's not a lot to ask that they should either sign up as members, or confirm their post by returning the email. |
|
23 Nov 06 - 05:09 AM (#1891494) Subject: RE: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: JohnInKansas Paul - I've seen this method used by some email boxes, but question (not necessarily as an objection) whether the delay to get the reply might have a disconcerting effect on order of postings. Some email services are quite slow in delivering the mail. I've sent myself emails that took nearly a full day to arrive. With email, your address for the send-back is automatically revealed to the recipient for sending the confirm request (unless you deliberately conceal it) but with a post it would require a separate, specific action for the poster to submit an email addy - with reluctance to do that probably being a main reason why they are GUESTs. A more common method for posted contributions is just to require a moderator to check them (all posts by GUEST?) before they appear in the thread; but that could put another rather large burden on our elves. Another fairly common method for killing machine posts is to use an image of randomly(?) generated numbers/letters and require the poster to copy and type them before the post is completed. That could be as automatic as sending an email requesting confirmation. It would eliminate machine-made posts, but not the "just ornery human" ones. John |
|
23 Nov 06 - 05:15 AM (#1891497) Subject: RE: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: The Shambles If spam is such a problem for you and don't like the open invitation that Max has extended for public contributions and for so long - why do you not find somewhere else? If you do like the good aspects of our forum - perhaps you will be prepared to bear with the efforts being made by Max to deal with some of the less good aspects? Perhaps you would agree that seeing a little bit of spam (until it can be dealt with) is but a small price for you and everyone else being basically free to say as they wish? |
|
23 Nov 06 - 05:46 AM (#1891515) Subject: RE: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: Grab Roger, Paul and John weren't suggesting stopping Guests posting anonymously, just putting something in place to limit spam. The captcha system (random distorted letters on a squiggly background) is very well established, and it's phenomenally difficult for a spammer to solve. It also puts very little extra hassle in the way of Guests posting - if you can type an intelligent post, you can surely type half a dozen characters in afterwards. Graham. |
|
23 Nov 06 - 05:54 AM (#1891518) Subject: RE: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: Wolfgang For those who wish to discuss something - it will be a suitable topic. Those who do not consider is so have every right to avoid opening, reading and posting to the thread concerned. (Shambles) Wolfgang |
|
23 Nov 06 - 08:47 AM (#1891626) Subject: RE: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: Grab Oops, just realised the possible confusion. That should read:- "Roger: Paul and John weren't..." |
|
23 Nov 06 - 08:50 AM (#1891629) Subject: RE: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: Sorcha I'd just like to see whomever is mucking about in the Help Forum stopped. |
|
23 Nov 06 - 09:10 AM (#1891643) Subject: RE: Tech: Preventing GUEST Spam From: GUEST Not that I've been hit badly, I've been looking at possible methods for my sites where guest posting is allowed. I had a quick look at a graphic one and thought it simple enough to implement. The possible drawback I saw with it is with a blind person but it is a simple enough matter to convert text to a wav file. |