https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42594
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Friesen <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > and that the bots that do so add spam not trivially combated by other > > anti-spam tools. > > Does this matter, if such tools are not on the wikis in question? We're > speaking of defaults here, so ideally you should consider only core tools (or > at most bundled extensions' defaults, but upgrading MediaWiki doesn't > automatically bring all bundled extensions). Sure it matters. Unconfigured core is not rated to fend off any spam at all. If it were then SimpleAntiSpam's method would be part of core. Frankly given how trivially we see MediaWiki installs that haven't been configured to deal with spam filled up, whether or not one core default changes the amount of spam on that already spam-filled wiki is irrelevant to the default value. If a wiki that is rated to fend off a reasonable amount of spam trivially fends off bots that $wgNoFollowLinks affects then $wgNoFollowLinks is irrelevant to the spam issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
