On Apr 15, 2008, at 2:26 PM, marius schebella wrote:
zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Quoting "SourceForge.net" noreply@sourceforge.net:
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: pdpedia
Status: Closed Resolution: Invalid
Submitted By: oli44 (oli44) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: pdpedia Captcha
Any admin can easily delete those junk posts with the 'delete' tab and also protect problem pages. A captcha might help, I haven't seen one for mediawiki before.
a captcha will help in about 97% probably even more (this is just a wild guess)
Check the "recent changes" log now, and you'll see the spam is gone. :)
hmm, your approach seems to deal with the problem but does nothing to prevent it. what will happen when the next attack starts? will we just have to wait for "any admin" to "easily delete those junk posts" again?
as far as i recall, when pdpedia was installed there was some consensus about using captchas when a spamming problem would appear. are there any technical or organisatorial problems in using them? (it seems like you have some reasons against using captchas, but you haven't told us yet)
I think we even agreed that in a case when sites get spammed, that only registered users were allowed to edit pages. I still would recommend that, I think then we don't need captchas. marius.
Spambots can easily register themselves and post, it happens a lot. Then you have to deal with managing spam users. When spambots can post anonymously, then it is easy to manage the removal of it. Managing spam users would be a lot more work.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams