B. Bogart wrote:
Hi!
#1. I can't seem to add wiki pages to docs/workshops I would like to make a new page for a workshop I'm teaching. I should have permission to add a wiki page there.
the problem is that wikis don't have a notion of plone workflows (which makes them "special" with respect to permissions)
as it has been discussed on pdweb some months ago, it should be possible to create a wikipage by just adding a "WikiPage" into an existing page (this is: you cannot add a completely new wiki-page, but you can create child-pages of other pages) please tell me whether this works.
#2. dev/pddp is covered in spam comments, how can we keep the spammers from posting this stuff?
the simple solution (which i have implemented now) is: disable comments for anonymous. afair, i have explicitely added anonymous comments a while ago because of a user request.
the best solution would probably be a "proof that you are no spam-bot" check-box or password or...
i haven't found something yet which fullfills this (preferrably as plone-product)
mf.asdr IOhannes
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
B. Bogart wrote:
the best solution would probably be a "proof that you are no spam-bot" check-box or password or...
i haven't found something yet which fullfills this (preferrably as plone-product)
so until now i have found 2 things: - since ZWiki-0.41 there are some anti-spam features built-into zwiki (http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-announce/2005-May/001720.html) - PloneCaptcha is a product that uses captcha-technology to prevent bots from posting
i am a bit uneasy of solution-1 about upgrade-paths (but i am not yet informed) solution-2 will probably not solve the zwiki problem at all (being a plone-product and zwiki being a produkt of the underlying zope); and it seems to be only tested with plone-2.1 (while puredata.info is still running at plone-2.0.1)
mf.asdr IOhannes
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
the best solution would probably be a "proof that you are no spam-bot" check-box or password or...
i haven't found something yet which fullfills this (preferrably as plone-product)
Because I also had comment-spammers on my site, I wrote a silly spam protection which randomly asks if you're a spammer or if you are no spammer and also randomly gives different default answers. This has stopped the spam so far, but of course it's a rather naive "solution", which can be circumvented easily if a spammer is desperate enough.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
the best solution would probably be a "proof that you are no spam-bot" check-box or password or...
i haven't found something yet which fullfills this (preferrably as plone-product)
Because I also had comment-spammers on my site, I wrote a silly spam protection which randomly asks if you're a spammer or if you are no spammer and also randomly gives different default answers. This has stopped the spam so far, but of course it's a rather naive "solution", which can be circumvented easily if a spammer is desperate enough.
well: your "solution" is what i had in mind. there is nothing that cannot be circumvented if a spammer really wants to have their saying. even the captcha thing does not help you, if a spammer is a human and not a bot.
the not-so-good thing with your approach is (imho), that the checkbox always has to default to the "wrong" answer, which makes it simple to guess the "right" answer. having 2 checkboxes, where _at least_ one has checked the wrong answer would make it more foolproof - at the cost of a real annoyance when using the system :-(
mf.asdr. IOhannes
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
the not-so-good thing with your approach is (imho), that the checkbox always has to default to the "wrong" answer, which makes it simple to guess the "right" answer.
Actually the answer is selected with a different random process as well. So sometimes the right answer is active, sometimes the wrong one is. Simply trying to always change to the inactive answer will only be successful about half of the time.
having 2 checkboxes, where _at least_ one has checked the wrong answer would make it more foolproof -
That's true.
at the cost of a real annoyance when using the system :-(
It still wouldn't be as annoying as Captchas, IMO.
Ciao
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
well: your "solution" is what i had in mind. there is nothing that cannot be circumvented if a spammer really wants to have their saying. even the captcha thing does not help you, if a spammer is a human and not a bot.
So the question is: how much of the worldwide spam production is being outsourced to India? how much will?
In the future, some countries' most valuable export will be spam. This may happen to Elbonia, for example. ;-)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
-
Frank Barknecht -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Mathieu Bouchard