No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Note: We are moving the topics of this forum and it will be deleted at some point

Publish your own request for comments/change or patches for the next version of phpBB. Discuss the contributions and proposals of others. Upcoming releases are 3.2/Rhea and 3.3.
Locked
User avatar
Master_Cylinder
Registered User
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by Master_Cylinder » Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:14 am

Pony99CA wrote:
Master_Cylinder wrote:Once again, you could simple allow always or deny always (per group) if you didn't want a # of posts but the choice to include it as an option means it helps more people that just you, it would help me too...
Once again, Auto Groups does that and more by allowing specified criteria (including post count) to control when somebody is added to a group. That's a much more elegant and flexible solution than a post count for URLs.
Once again, this RFC is to get the functionality of 2-3 MODs in the core. I *know* there are MODs (I use them) but something as basic as better anti-spam could be added to the core so people need fewer MODs/extensions. Isn't that what RFCs are for, to make/discuss such requests?

If you don't want all of the features that I've requested (assuming that they are accepted) then don't turn them all on. Simple.
These kids today...
Buy them books, send them to school and what do they do?

They eat the paste. :lol:

Danielx64
Registered User
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:42 am

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by Danielx64 » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:52 am

Auto group sound like a good idea.

User avatar
Jessica.
Registered User
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by Jessica. » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:19 pm

+1 for a required post count for posting URLs

User avatar
bonelifer
Community Team
Community Team
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:41 am

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by bonelifer » Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:49 am

They are free to give an alternate way of doing the same thing if they want. These RFC topics are for discussions. Not for you to micro-manage what others say or think.

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by Pony99CA » Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:56 am

Alien_Time wrote:There is nothing wrong with what Pony99CA suggested. I also do think that the idea of combining this no link feature together with the autogroup mod seems like a good approach and the reason being having the auto group mod in the core can be useful to a lot of additional features/permissions such as this.
That's exactly what I was getting at. I think that an automatic group mechanism in the core would accomplish what this topic is about and be useful in many more ways. A simple post counter that only applies to the ability to post links is too specific and would require hard-coded rules to possibly exempt moderators and admins from that limit.

Two negatives don't make a positive in this case. :)

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by DavidIQ » Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:28 am

Ok...since I don't really have the energy to clean this up right now this is getting locked until maybe one of the Moderators can take a look and split stuff out.
Image

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by DavidIQ » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:22 am

Ok I'm going to put on my Grumpy hat now. I've split all irrelevant posts into oblivion. Since I've just wasted quite a few minutes reading PMs, splitting posts, and closing the 8 post reports, the next time you guys decide to resort to insults you will earn yourselves an insta-ban. Note the following:
  1. Disagreeing with someone is not an insult.
  2. When disagreeing with someone it should be done respectfully.
  3. Providing alternate solutions or compromises is not "going off topic".
  4. The Moderators are the ones tasked with policing the forums. The issues that arose in this topic should have been brought up to one of them, not a random team member or Team Leader.
  5. Once a post is reported there is no need to continue sending PMs regarding it.
Please stay civil and respectful. All of you provide some valuable input and insight. I would hate to have to stop that input from coming in.

Thanks

*removes Grumpy hat*
Image

Danielx64
Registered User
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:42 am

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by Danielx64 » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:41 am

For starters I think that having auto groups would be a good idea as it would be more flexible than having a one size fit all.

User avatar
Master_Cylinder
Registered User
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by Master_Cylinder » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:35 am

Pony99CA wrote:I think that an automatic group mechanism in the core would accomplish what this topic is about and be useful in many more ways. A simple post counter that only applies to the ability to post links is too specific and would require hard-coded rules to possibly exempt moderators and admins from that limit.
There's no need to add a special group just for this and there would be zero need to hard-code exceptions for amins/mods because each group would already be able to be configured separately. If you look at this solution you see that the default can be set to always allow admin and mod groups to post links, default the NRU group to never post links and the registered user group can default to the 1st post but be changed as I described:
Just add can post links after X posts to the "group wide settings" config and let the admin choose how many.
0 = never, (1-99) = configurable X and blank = always."
...or something like that. ;)
Danielx64 wrote:For starters I think that having auto groups would be a good idea as it would be more flexible than having a one size fit all.
One size fits all what? My solution doesn't need a special group but can still accommodate the flexibility. Maybe you want autogroups for something else but there's no need for a group for this idea, imho.

Let me ask the programmers this, which would be easier to code? Autogroups and no-link per group or no-link per group with an extra group wide setting? Which one is leaner? I think swapping members in and out of a group for this is heavier than a simple group wide setting. YMMV...
These kids today...
Buy them books, send them to school and what do they do?

They eat the paste. :lol:

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: No Link For You! (anti-spam)

Post by Pony99CA » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:34 pm

Master_Cylinder wrote:
Pony99CA wrote:I think that an automatic group mechanism in the core would accomplish what this topic is about and be useful in many more ways. A simple post counter that only applies to the ability to post links is too specific and would require hard-coded rules to possibly exempt moderators and admins from that limit.
There's no need to add a special group just for this and there would be zero need to hard-code exceptions for amins/mods because each group would already be able to be configured separately. If you look at this solution you see that the default can be set to always allow admin and mod groups to post links, default the NRU group to never post links and the registered user group can default to the 1st post but be changed as I described:
Just add can post links after X posts to the "group wide settings" config and let the admin choose how many.
0 = never, (1-99) = configurable X and blank = always."
...or something like that. ;)
In your proposal, it's true that there would be no need for a new group, but you would need to go type the number of posts required to post links into the groups you wanted to limit. (Presumably it would default to zero, meaning anybody could do it.)

Now consider that another user wants a new feature -- the ability to not allow PMing for a number of posts (phpBB.com actually has this limit, I believe, set to 5). That means another counter in the Group wide settings section, changing the ACP to accommodate that counter and changing the code to check for it.

Now suppose that another user wants ability to limit linking to images for a number of posts. That means another counter in the Group wide settings section, changing the ACP to accommodate that counter and changing the code to check for it.

Now suppose that another user wants ability to limit posting Flash for a number of posts. That means another counter in the Group wide settings section, changing the ACP to accommodate that counter and changing the code to check for it.

Do you see where this is going?

With Auto Groups, you'd have two new Group wide settings counters -- Posts required to join group and Posts required to exit group -- and you'd create the group using existing permissions. Newly Registered Users would be 0 and whatever you set now. Most other groups would probably be the limit that you wanted to enter and zero to exit (meaning you don't exit).

Doesn't that sound simpler in the long run?
Master_Cylinder wrote:
Danielx64 wrote:For starters I think that having auto groups would be a good idea as it would be more flexible than having a one size fit all.
One size fits all what? My solution doesn't need a special group but can still accommodate the flexibility. Maybe you want autogroups for something else but there's no need for a group for this idea, imho.
It's "one size fits all" in the sense that you're only handling the problem for one limit. Auto Groups makes it easy to limit the number of posts for any permissions that the admin chooses, not just the specific one that you may want right now.
Master_Cylinder wrote: Let me ask the programmers this, which would be easier to code? Autogroups and no-link per group or no-link per group with an extra group wide setting? Which one is leaner? I think swapping members in and out of a group for this is heavier than a simple group wide setting. YMMV...
Remember that it's not necessarily about what's easier to implement for one specific request; it's also about making things extensible for the future. As I hope I've demonstrated, Auto Groups is more extensible.

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.

Locked