On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:36:12 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> I agree, reCaptcha is suboptimal but the alternative is for the wiki > >> team (1.5 persons) to revert lots of spam daily instead of one or two > >> per week. If you have an anti-spam mechanism that is as effective as > >> reCaptcha then we would love to hear about it. > >This is topic-drift, so only a short reply: reCaptcha is not "an > >anti-spam mechanism". It does nothing to test whether a submission is > >spam or a submitter is a spammer. It is merely a physical ability > >test that is failed by a group which includes most spam robots and > >some software-assisted humans. It works a bit, but is evil. > >http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWiki/DealingWithSpam doesn't look > >current, so I don't know what anti-spam mechanisms are actually > >installed, but things like rate limits and a moderation queue may help. > The main thrust of our anti-spam strategy is: > * require people to have accounts to be able to edit > (create/change/rename etc.) pages in the wiki > * control account creation so that spammers either don't create them > in the first place, or we disable accounts when we detect spam > attacks. > Recaptcha is simply one of several methods that we've used to limit > account creation. > Given that, I've disabled recaptcha again for new account creation and > I'll monitor the effects for the next few days. Hopefully things will > stay under control now. Nobody *likes* using recaptcha, agreed... for spammer robot: I saw using trap field for spam robot protection on some blogs. it is: for human, it is using css and saying don't enter, and robot will enter it so, it can be treated as robot if the field has a value. -- victory no need to CC me :-) http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/102724 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
