[aur-general] We've got a spam issue in our AUR

[Prakhar Singh]

You can also limit the number messages a person can post. And +1 for
moderation. Apart from spam, people start discussions, chats, etc in
comments. There is no way to stop that. And +1 for layered filters. For
example, if two people tag each other repeatedly you can flag it as a chat,
and so on.

Regards
Prakhar Singh
IIT Roorkee


On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Tai-Lin Chu <tailinchu at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have seen some spam filters that have layers.
>
> The first layer is captcha, which blocks most bots. Google recaptcha
> is very useful in this case. I don't think this will block any human
> user. In addition, users don't have to enter captcha every time once
> it determines that a person is not a bot. For reference:
> https://www.google.com/recaptcha/intro/index.html
>
> The second layer is letting users to report spams, or having some kind
> of rating system (reddit). This blocks diligent human spammers. In
> particular reddit's rating system is smart because it requires no
> moderator; users actively downvote bad comments and upvote useful
> ones.
>
> I generally don't like keyword-based spam filters because they take
> time to maintain a good keyword list and are easy to block legit
> users.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Johannes Löthberg
> > <johannes at kyriasis.com> wrote:
> >> Not all spam is automated , so just requiring a CAPTCHA wouldn't be very
> >> useful. I think a slightly better approach would be to add the comment
> to a
> >> queue if it fails the spam filter, and require a TU to approve it.
> >
> > Seems like a lot of unnecessary work for TUs though. Maybe it would be
> > better for maintainers approval to be required for posts that fail a
> > spam filter (they could just ignore it). Even if its not really spam,
> > its probably aimed at the maintainer anyway.
>