Computer Science Canada Small antispam update |
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Small antispam update |
I have made a small update to the code for the registration page and posting page to help stop spam bots. If you get any errors saying something about you being a bot, let me know via dan@compsci.ca. |
|
| Author: | mother teresa [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
you got it |
|
| Author: | SNIPERDUDE [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
Will do. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Small antispam update |
I'm not convinced it worked. I just had to delete a dozen or so spam posts in OT. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Small antispam update |
rdrake @ 12th February 2010, 12:29 pm wrote: I'm not convinced it worked. I just had to delete a dozen or so spam posts in OT.
I'm not convinced there bots now, that or the bots acuataly navigate threw each page like a person would and can do captchas. Edit: For example the last spammer was on the site for over 16 minuets and had 79 page hits to make there spam posts. |
|
| Author: | SNIPERDUDE [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
I don't imagine there's too much we can do about human spammers. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
I have just added a new feature to the report function which will hide a topic and flag it for review if enough users report it. Obviously abuse of this new feature will lead to your acount being banned, so don't report topics just to remove a post you disagree with. Edit: All posted links will also have rel="nofollow" added to them to discourage PR related spam. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
What's that do? PR related spam? |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Small antispam update |
insectoid @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:47 pm wrote: What's that do? PR related spam? That's the idea. Even if they still do it it won't benefit them in any way. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
I was asking what rel="nofollow" does and what PR related spam is. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
It stops spiders from following those links. This reduces the grow in page rank of the links posted by spammers. |
|
| Author: | BigBear [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
How do you get past Capatcha? I don't want a script or program I just want to know the theory behind it. Does it screen shot the screen and try to solve the word? |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
You could also ban sites such as 10minutemail.com or mail.com giving artificial emails to register bots and require real email addresses instead. If someone turns out to be a bot or spammer, you could then ban that email from registering new accounts (or ban multiple accounts on 1 email in the first place). Just thinking....I don't know if you have already implemented this tho. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Small antispam update |
BigBear @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:00 pm wrote: Does it screen shot the screen and try to solve the word?
Send the captcha elsewhere. There are a lot of people willing to solve captchas all day long for _very cheap_ |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Small antispam update |
ProgrammingFun @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:48 pm wrote: or ban multiple accounts on 1 email in the first place
That is typically the case. A lot of places use email as the primary user id, so those are forced to be unique. But getting a new email address is virtually free and trivially automated. |
|
| Author: | USEC_OFFICER [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
Ban IP adresses? (As a last resort) |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
it's not hard to get a new IP. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Small antispam update |
USEC_OFFICER @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:50 pm wrote: Ban IP adresses?
So what would you do if some machine behind its network's router is compromised and is sending out spam? An IP could include a school's class, all of the school, or in some cases a whole school board behind the same public address. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Small antispam update |
Tony @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:13 am wrote: USEC_OFFICER @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:50 pm wrote: Ban IP adresses?
So what would you do if some machine behind its network's router is compromised and is sending out spam? An IP could include a school's class, all of the school, or in some cases a whole school board behind the same public address. Yes, but you could ban that certain IP from CREATING accounts. If someone at school wants an account, they can easily make one at home. For example, Wikipedia has banned TDSB schools from editing any articles or creating accounts (although signed-in accounts on school computers can still make edits). |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Small antispam update |
Most spammers only use an IP once and then never again. Also most of the time this is an IP of an infected computer which means it's a home ISP. Blocking all of bell, shaw, cogoeco, etc is not an option. When it is clear that the spammer is coming form a data center and not a home or school based ISP we do block the range of that data center but it does lite to help since they rarely come back any way. The effect of spam on this site is so small, it hardly seems worth it to block school users from crating account because they possibly become infected, by that logic we might as well just turn off user registration. |
|