| |||||||||||||
Old threadsOld threadsPosted Jul 30, 2010 15:07 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Old threads by ortalo Parent article: On comment spam I guess that never really crossed our minds. Comments are content too, and some of them are very much worthwhile. I'd prefer not to hide them from the net. That said, we do put rel=nofollow onto links in comments in some situations.
(Log in to post comments)
LWN quiz? Posted Jul 30, 2010 16:56 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
How about just making new non-subscriber comment posters answer a few basic questions?
When would you run the "make oldconfig" command?
If a manufacturer installs Linux on mobile phones and sells them, which of the following actions does the GNU GPL require?
Which of these is _not_ a Linux filesystem?
Old threads Posted Aug 3, 2010 23:48 UTC (Tue) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> That said, we do put rel=nofollow onto links in comments in some situations.
what we do on the grsec forums is that for 'new' users (registered for less than X days and/or posted less than Y times) we disable the rendering of the url tag (i.e., the url is rendered as plain text, and not lost). this doesn't prevent spamming but is an annoyance for those semi-automated drive-by spammers who want to lure readers to their own sites with a click of a button. and for targeted spams it's hand-to-hand combat as usual ;).
Old threads Posted Aug 5, 2010 11:19 UTC (Thu) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link]
I was going to suggest something like that. Actually I was thinking more like banning new users posts with URLs, but close. :)
Obviously, virtually every spam message contains a URL. Most legitimate comments do not.
Preventing those with fewer than 5 legit comments from posting messages with URLs seems like a small price to pay.
|
|||||||||||||