Log in Discussion History Go to the site toolbox

BluWiki talk:Link Spam

From BluWiki

Revision as of 09:09, 23 January 2006 by Bear (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Content filter

I've created a content filter which should significantly reduce the amount of spam we get. Right now, it filters both words and domain names (although I would like to evenetually only filter problematic domain names).

I based the filter off the content in these edits:

If anyone finds repeat spam coming from other domain names, please post them here and I will block them as well. If anyone feels something here should not be blocked, let me know.

Current filter expression here

That is a good, effective way to limit the amount of crap we must deal with manually. Kudos! — "Bear" 04:09, 23 January 2006 (EST)


Note: because of the content filter, I've cleared the blocklist. --Sam Odio 12:32, 22 January 2006 (EST)

IPs to Block

Sam, you might want to have a watch on IP and block it in the future. Edits from this IP

IP Blocking

May I suggest you reconsider your IP blocking strategy? I see you have blocked a large number of IPs with no expiration -- that is, they are indefinitely blocked. You'll notice that I've also blocked a couple of IPs, but with a 1 month expiry.

At some point, it is more likely that a given IP will be reused by an innocent user than that the original spammer will re-attack using the same IP. Modem users generally get a new IP assigned every day; DSL and cable broadband users may stay with the same IP for several weeks, but eventually disconnect for some reason or another and, when reconnecting, will get a new IP. The only users who get true static IPs (generally speaking) are businesses with T1 or better connections. Most spammers anticipate IP blocking wherever they go, so they actually prefer dynamic IPs.

So, to avoid the scenario in which innocent new users aren't able to connect to BluWiki, I suggest blocking with an expiry of 1 month or less. Of course, recurring attacks from the same IP over time demand an extended expiry, but even so, 1 year should be more than sufficient. — "Bear" 11:43, 29 December 2005 (EST)

Good points... I'll start blocking w/ a 1 month expiry. If we get repeat spam from the ips.. than we can work something out. --Sam Odio 11:37, 1 January 2006 (EST)


Do you think it would be wise for us to make a template about repeat spam pages (the notorious ones) and then just protect them for a week as an experiment? Chotchki 00:12, 5 January 2006 (EST)

Yah I think it's something to explore. I've wondered if it would work to protect these pages (like BluWiki:Community Portal) and instead make tempaltes that users can edit like Template:Community Portal Welcome or whatever. Also, I've been protecting the pages that nobody uses and have been spammed repeatively (e.g. User_talk:
Or better yet, is there a way to protect a page from unlogged in edits? That would still solve the issue and not inconvience us too much. Chotchki 23:40, 5 January 2006 (EST)
Well, this is one of those political issues. Over on WP, the radicals are firmly in charge; despite continuous major vandalism, they refuse to demand that users log in before editing. One reviwer (in the print media) called this a "no-brainer"; I agree it's an obvious precaution. No edits from anon IP users -- not to any page. — "Bear" 13:30, 16 January 2006 (EST)
I am also in support of edits (or at least new pages) only from logged-in users. OpenWetWare (http://openwetware.org/) successfully does this (it's infact more strict - you've got to mail the admin for an account.. but that's way too complicated) —Karthik 03:08, 20 January 2006 (EST)

Site Toolbox:

Personal tools
GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
This page was last modified on 23 January 2006, at 09:09.
Disclaimers - About BluWiki