PEAK XOOPS - 人海 戦術 なSPAMをどう対策 するか 
XOOPS
XOOPS : 人海 戦術 なSPAMをどう対策 するか
このサイトは
もちろん、
そのためのフィルターも
postcommon_post_register_moratorium.php
です。
Comments list
vaughan
Posted on 2009/10/25 4:13
hows the spam filter going? any updates yet on how many it's blocked etc?
vaughan
Posted on 2009/9/5 19:22
Quote:
agreed, a lot will not want to wait that long.
1 of the main types of spam we see now isn't where a human spammer posts links in posts & forums, but they actually fill their signature & extra info fields with URLS, & then try to make their posts look as though they are asking for help, or thanking someone for help. they are getting more devious that's for sure. i guess if we could prevent them doing that aswell it would be a good step forward.
lets hope your filter reduces these even more :) it's about time we developers fought back.
She/he can post without such URLs within 60 minutes.
And their purpose can be achived without URLs.
* human SPAMMERS
She/he cannot wait 60 minutes.
And their purpose can not be achived without URLs.
agreed, a lot will not want to wait that long.
1 of the main types of spam we see now isn't where a human spammer posts links in posts & forums, but they actually fill their signature & extra info fields with URLS, & then try to make their posts look as though they are asking for help, or thanking someone for help. they are getting more devious that's for sure. i guess if we could prevent them doing that aswell it would be a good step forward.
lets hope your filter reduces these even more :) it's about time we developers fought back.
GIJOE
Posted on 2009/9/5 18:58 | Last modified
hi vaughan.
Thank you for the advice
Quote:
I know the new user will feel inconvenience.
But I guess:
*A visitor can wait my slow answer
She/he can wait 60 minutes for posting.
And the filter rejects just literals like URL
eg)
http://...
bbcodes [ url]
www.(domain))
She/he can post without such URLs within 60 minutes.
And their purpose can be achived without URLs.
* human SPAMMERS
She/he cannot wait 60 minutes.
And their purpose can not be achived without URLs.
Anyway, I have to test the filter in a practice site.
You can see this site's name:
PEAK XOOPS SUPPORT & EXPERIMENT
Quote:I know it too.
Running the filter in this site is an important experiment for all CMS Users.
Including ImpressCMS, of course
Even with the filter, a SPAM was posted by hand.
However, the filter has blocked three SPAMs -the same kind of- at least in this week.
I estimate I have to continue the experiment some months.
Thank you for the advice
Quote:
i applaud your continued developments into this, & good luck in trying to reduce this further. though I feel you're fighting a losing battle in relation to human spammers as opposed to bots.
i don't think there's much anybody can do to prevent a human spammer except plenty of vigilance. i don't think disabling posts for 60 minutes will solve it unfortunately, though it's a sure inconvenience to them, it is also an inconvenience to those legitimate users who registered.
I know the new user will feel inconvenience.
But I guess:
*A visitor can wait my slow answer
She/he can wait 60 minutes for posting.
And the filter rejects just literals like URL
eg)
http://...
bbcodes [ url]
www.(domain))
She/he can post without such URLs within 60 minutes.
And their purpose can be achived without URLs.
* human SPAMMERS
She/he cannot wait 60 minutes.
And their purpose can not be achived without URLs.
Anyway, I have to test the filter in a practice site.
You can see this site's name:
PEAK XOOPS SUPPORT & EXPERIMENT
Quote:
i guess thats 1 of the hardest things to weigh up in our fight against spam, spam protection vs user inconvenience, where do you draw the line? tough decisions.
Running the filter in this site is an important experiment for all CMS Users.
Including ImpressCMS, of course
Even with the filter, a SPAM was posted by hand.
However, the filter has blocked three SPAMs -the same kind of- at least in this week.
I estimate I have to continue the experiment some months.
vaughan
Posted on 2009/8/30 22:25
i applaud your continued developments into this, & good luck in trying to reduce this further. though I feel you're fighting a losing battle in relation to human spammers as opposed to bots.
i don't think there's much anybody can do to prevent a human spammer except plenty of vigilance. i don't think disabling posts for 60 minutes will solve it unfortunately, though it's a sure inconvenience to them, it is also an inconvenience to those legitimate users who registered.
i guess thats 1 of the hardest things to weigh up in our fight against spam, spam protection vs user inconvenience, where do you draw the line? tough decisions.
i don't think there's much anybody can do to prevent a human spammer except plenty of vigilance. i don't think disabling posts for 60 minutes will solve it unfortunately, though it's a sure inconvenience to them, it is also an inconvenience to those legitimate users who registered.
i guess thats 1 of the hardest things to weigh up in our fight against spam, spam protection vs user inconvenience, where do you draw the line? tough decisions.
Login