Christopher Lenz wrote: > Am 25.10.2006 um 17:18 schrieb Ilias Lazaridis: > > Noah Kantrowitz wrote: > >> I know this has come up before, but the false positive rate for > >> Askimet > >> on t.e.o is getting to be problematic. Just as an off-the-top-of- > >> my-head > >> proposal to improve, could we add some kind of karma tracking system? > >> Start each anonymous session at a fixed karma (lets say 10), and only > >> allow them to post thing while that stays over a threshhold. > >> SpamFilter > >> would run its tests on each submission, and set it up something > >> like -1 > >> karma for each failed test, +0.1 for each passed one. While this > >> would > >> probably let through more spam than the current setup, I think the > >> number of people that might be turned off from using Trac (or from > >> writting docs/bug reports) is even worse. I have been helping Alec > >> with > >> spam monitoring (and deleting) on trac-hacks, and would be happy > >> to help > >> on t.e.o too. > >> > >> --Noah > > > > I have myself a few times problems to add comments to tickets. > > > > Today, new tickets and even comments to a ticket > > > > http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/4019 > > > > were rejected with a simple "Akismet rejected spam". > > > > This makes using trac difficult and has a _very_ demotivating effect. > > (Coincidentally, Google groups has also started flagging many of your > messages as spam, putting them in the moderation queue. No idea why, > but it'd probably help if you wouldn't prefix every friggin' subject > with some uppercase word :-P )
Placing an uppercase tag is nothing special within groups. This seems to be a another defect at GoogleGroups. Another one is removing [] enclosure of those tags, which are common practice within usenet (e.g. [ANN], [OT] etc.) > Now about Akismet (again): yeah, it produces lots of false positives, > and the integration with Trac needs to be much improved (adding > moderation and training). However, it currently is the *only* way we > have to stop many kinds of spam attacks. You have *no* idea what > would be happening on the Trac site if it wasn't enabled. We'd be > spending all of our spare time on cleaning up after the spam, > legitimate submissions would drown in the noise, and the whole > project would grind to a halt (yeah, that's slightly exaggerated, but > not that much). I understand the problem. But of course there are other ways, too. at least: a) create whitelists (thus at least known contributors have no trouble) b) provide create accounts and registration > You're tickets usually contain quite a number of links to your own > site. Have you tried removing those? Some of the reject comments do not contain any links. > Personally, I'd prefer not > having to read up on stuff on another site when it doesn't even add > any value to the actual ticket, which I feel is often the case with > the links you post. I post normally just one link, which is the context (normally working plan or a ticket). someone can find relevant information, otherone can ignore it fully. > Until someone comes up with actual improvements to the anti-spam > measures available, we'll have to keep things as they are now. Fighting spam is science & art - and a topic in its own. The current implementation within trac is (friendly sayed) amateurish and reflects _very_ negative to the trac project. It's like you don't care about what your users have to say. . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
