__/ [John Bokma] on Saturday 17 September 2005 03:42 \__
> "KarlCore" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Your message 'Very interesting blog!' is too short, please try again
>>> Your message 'Realy good site!' is too short, please try again
>>> Your message 'Your site is realy very interesting!' is too short,
>>> please try again
>>> Your message 'Very nice site!' is too short, please try again
>>> So, yeah, for now my little trick does seem to reduce blog spam. The
>>> next step will probably be comments of a "normal" length.
>> You may want to instead work on a blacklist of banned phrases
> I think that everything less then 40 characters in length can be counted
> as banned :-D
>> banned urls like the one at http://blacklist.chongqed.org/
> Those change a lot, moreover, I have the idea that now and then "innocent
> URLs" are posted, just for testing. With my message length check off I got
> 10 messages in 3 hrs... (So I turned it back on).
That discussion about comment spam returns to life then.
You can never filter comment spam perfectly, but a good test will involve
frequency of hits, IP address(es), word occurrence, number of URL's, etc.
Even with all of these walls, some spam will continue to penetrate.
Luckily, I have not yet (knowingly) killed genuine comments. However, many
get queued for moderation, which is far from ideal. Stories in my front
page go into the archives (graveyard) after just a day and a half. By the
time a comment gets approved, the poster may not even know about it.
I sometimes get very odd comments, such as this one from this morning:
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
4:05am up 22 days 16:19, 2 users, load average: 0.28, 0.39, 0.41