Jonas Borgström wrote: > Christian Boos wrote: > >> Hi Jonas, >> >> First, I've noticed that we have now: [spam-filter] min_karma 0 >> Wasn't that higher in the past, like "3"? "1" should be the minimum, I >> think (and this would have caught those stupid "haha;" comments from >> this morning...). >> > > I think it was lowered because it generated a lot of false positives. > But we might need to adjust it again. Is a lot of spam getting through? >
At times, quite a lot at 1, 2, or 3 karma points. Of course there are also the "vicious" copy comment/paste same comment + a link spams, which go through in any case, unless the target link was explicitly blacklisted. It's mainly because of the latter kind that I thought about reviving the captcha stuff. >> Also, there's still the problem with the unicode or binary attachments >> (#5591). This is becoming increasingly annoying for the translators. >> Last time I've tried to reproduce it locally with PostgreSQL (8.1 win32, >> accessed through psycopg2 2.0.6), I couldn't, so I think this is >> something best debugged on t.e.o itself. >> > > I think it should be fixed in [6990]. The culprit seems to be spambayes > which sometimes manages to generate invalid utf-8 byte sequences > (probably by splitting utf-8 characters). > This fix is now installed on t.e.o so please let me know if the problems > persists. > Great, it looks like this was it (and yes, I didn't have SpamBayes installed during my tests). >> Now that I'm talking about the spam-filter, I should mention that I've >> revived the spam-filter-captcha variant from Alec, and modulo one last >> change I'd like to make (#7173) I think it would be good to integrate it >> back in the "main" spam-filter plugin. We could then eventually enable >> it on t.e.o as well (but that's really a separate question). >> What do people think? >> > > How does it work? Do all non-authenticated sessions need to answer a > captcha question? > Yes, but only once in a while, the success status is maintained in the session for a while (captcha_karma_lifetime). > How about only requiring a capcha response after a positive result from > the spam-filter. That way we could configure our spam-filter to be more > aggressive and still not havint to annoy all our users with capchas. > This is already what it does. -- Christian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
