[geeklog-devtalk] spamx alternative

[Tony Bibbs]

Yeah, at one point this sort of thing was discussed and I think I even 
found some GPL'd code that did just this.  I don't remember why the idea 
died...however, I do remember it wasn't brought up in the context of 
spam prevention (at least I don't think). 

Main drawback is, obviously, for the visually impaired...so to that 
extend this feature would need to be configurable and, when it isn't 
used, I think spamx may still fit.

I'll keep an eye on how this progresses so that we might keep the GL2 in 
line with any decision.

--Tony

Richard S. Westmoreland wrote:


>I have read the dev digest:

>

>http://lists.geeklog.net/pipermail/geeklog-devtalk/2004-December/000733.html

>

>Which discusses issues with the SpamX plugin that is prompting a new release

>of 1.3.11.

>

>I propose that instead of trying to make this plugin work, a different spam

>filtering tactic be used and spamx be taken out of the next release.

>Instead of blacklisting known links, the commenter has to prove he/she is

>manually typing it in and not using an automated bot (as these spammers are

>doing).  You would have to implement Code Verification.  Many forum packages

>now use this for registrations and you see this with domain whois lookups to

>prevent bulk lookups.

>

>If you use Code Verification for anonymous comments, you might as well tie

>this into member registrations too to add that extra security.

>

>For example, on the page for entering in a comment or registering a new

>user, I would be given an image "TR7EK" that isn't a real font and has lines

>and scribbles running through it to prevent a bot from parsing it.  phpBB is

>using this so you may be able to borrow their code.

>

>Rick

>

>_______________________________________________

>geeklog-devtalk mailing list

>geeklog-devtalk at lists.geeklog.net

>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devtalk

>  

>