On 15.07.2015 00:53, David Phillips wrote:
I agree with gt. Not meaning to bike shed further, but if we had a 'not
constructive' or 'destructive' flag, and have the comment appear grayed out
and flagged for moderation after n flags, this would be a more sane
implementation of 'voting' on comments
I should add that I am not yet advocating such a solution. As others have
said, the spam problem is not large enough to warrant it.
I agree with gt. Not meaning to bike shed further, but if we had a 'not
constructive' or 'destructive' flag, and have the comment appear grayed out
and flagged for moderation after n flags, this would be a more sane
implementation of 'voting' on comments.
On 14 July 2015 18:54:11 GMT+05:30, Giancarlo Razzolini
wrote:
>Em 14-07-2015 07:01, Prakhar Singh escreveu:
>> You can also limit the number messages a person can post. And +1 for
>> moderation. Apart from spam, people start discussions, chats, etc in
>> comments. There is no way to stop that. A
Em 14-07-2015 07:01, Prakhar Singh escreveu:
You can also limit the number messages a person can post. And +1 for
moderation. Apart from spam, people start discussions, chats, etc in
comments. There is no way to stop that. And +1 for layered filters. For
example, if two people tag each other repe
You can also limit the number messages a person can post. And +1 for
moderation. Apart from spam, people start discussions, chats, etc in
comments. There is no way to stop that. And +1 for layered filters. For
example, if two people tag each other repeatedly you can flag it as a chat,
and so on.
R
I have seen some spam filters that have layers.
The first layer is captcha, which blocks most bots. Google recaptcha
is very useful in this case. I don't think this will block any human
user. In addition, users don't have to enter captcha every time once
it determines that a person is not a bot. F
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Johannes Löthberg
wrote:
> Not all spam is automated , so just requiring a CAPTCHA wouldn't be very
> useful. I think a slightly better approach would be to add the comment to a
> queue if it fails the spam filter, and require a TU to approve it.
Seems like a lot
On 12/07, Ido Rosen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 at 18:25:47, Andrejs Mivreņiks wrote:
Hi,
Suspending the account is good, though what about messages? Are they
going to be removed? Also there is totally no spam protection that I know of at
Em 12-07-2015 15:33, Lukas Fleischer escreveu:
The only additional thing I can think of is some flood control
mechanism which does not fix the problem itself but helps reducing the
degree of damage...
Requiring a captcha will prevent some people from posting. Implementing
a flood control, might
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 at 18:25:47, Andrejs Mivreņiks wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Suspending the account is good, though what about messages? Are they
>> going to be removed? Also there is totally no spam protection that I know of
>> at
>> this momen
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 at 17:54:10, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On 12/07/15 11:24 AM, Andrejs Mivreņiks wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The user instmania[1] has posted spam links in the comments section
> > of almost every recently updated package. For example [2]
> >
> > [1] https://aur4.archlinux.org/account/in
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 at 18:25:47, Andrejs Mivreņiks wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Suspending the account is good, though what about messages? Are they
> going to be removed? Also there is totally no spam protection that I know of
> at
> this moment in AUR, at some point it might turn out to be a bigger problem
Hi,
Suspending the account is good, though what about messages? Are they
going to be removed? Also there is totally no spam protection that I know of at
this moment in AUR, at some point it might turn out to be a bigger problem than
that today.
Regards,
Andrejs
--
Andrejs Mivreņiks
PGP Key
On 12/07/15 11:24 AM, Andrejs Mivreņiks wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The user instmania[1] has posted spam links in the comments section
> of almost every recently updated package. For example [2]
>
> [1] https://aur4.archlinux.org/account/instmania/
> [2] https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/warthunder/
I s
Hi
Il 12/07/2015 17:24, Andrejs Mivreņiks ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> The user instmania[1] has posted spam links in the comments section
> of almost every recently updated package. For example [2]
>
> [1] https://aur4.archlinux.org/account/instmania/
> [2] https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/warthund
Hi,
The user instmania[1] has posted spam links in the comments section
of almost every recently updated package. For example [2]
[1] https://aur4.archlinux.org/account/instmania/
[2] https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/warthunder/
--
Andrejs Mivreņiks
PGP Key Fingerprint:
3872 5DEB BCA5
17 matches
Mail list logo
