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 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:00 am

If you want I'll keep going there... :roll:
That's all I want and the only thing I currently use autogroups for. There may be other uses but that doesn't mean this is a good one for autogroups.

Maybe I need to say it again; not every solution has to support every conceivable alternative to every desire, sometimes the simple solutions are best and there's no need to over-complicate everything.
These kids today...
Buy them books, send them to school and what do they do?

They eat the paste. :lol:

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

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

Post by DavidIQ » Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:59 am

Both sides have their merits. On the one end it would be easier to code but we would be limiting or even eliminating options for future expansion or for widening the reach of such a system. On the other hand it would be more complex to code but the system would be more flexible.

I think at the end of the day it will be up to the person that actually decides to grab this RFC, if anyone, to code it and submit a pull request.
Image

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 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:15 pm

Autogroups would also be more resource heavy too. The simplicity/narrow focus vs complexity/flexibility differences are obvious.

I'm not going to be writing the code so if that's how those decisions are made (first one to write it how they want it wins) then it's a shot in the dark. I just figured there was more to it than that so I threw the request out there.
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 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:34 am

Master_Cylinder wrote:Autogroups would also be more resource heavy too.
Probably, but you don't seem to mind extra load (and latency) for your other anti-spam project -- blacklists (paragraph #4). At least AutoGroups has the possibility to meet many other user requirements.
Master_Cylinder wrote: I'm not going to be writing the code so if that's how those decisions are made (first one to write it how they want it wins) then it's a shot in the dark.
I hope that's not how it works. In fact, didn't I ask if phpBB would accept a Pull Request even if many users actually were opposed to the function being implemented? So I hope that merely writing a PR isn't sufficient to get into the core, even if it may be necessary at times.

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
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 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:48 am

Pony99CA wrote:
Master_Cylinder wrote:Autogroups would also be more resource heavy too.
Probably, but you don't seem to mind extra load (and latency) for your other anti-spam project -- blacklists (paragraph #4). At least AutoGroups has the possibility to meet many other user requirements.
Master_Cylinder wrote: I'm not going to be writing the code so if that's how those decisions are made (first one to write it how they want it wins) then it's a shot in the dark.
I hope that's not how it works. In fact, didn't I ask if phpBB would accept a Pull Request even if many users actually were opposed to the function being implemented? So I hope that merely writing a PR isn't sufficient to get into the core, even if it may be necessary at times.

Steve
I also said that autogroups might be the right solution for *other* features, I just don't think it's good for THIS one and I say that as an admin that USES autogroups to get this feature. I just wish I didn't need it for that. Blacklists are one of the features to use resources on, this one doesn't need to be as heavy. Regardless, this one isn't about blacklists although I'm about to start a new blacklist RFC...I think.

Since I'm not a dev I have no idea, that *seemed* to be what he was saying and nobody said anything differently, so I have to take it at face value. I don't think popularity (or a lack of) has anything to do with which ideas are accepted and which are rejected. I think it only matters if the devs want it or not...and who writes the first PR when there are competing ideas on how to do it I guess. ;)
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 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:25 am

Master_Cylinder wrote:I also said that autogroups might be the right solution for *other* features, I just don't think it's good for THIS one and I say that as an admin that USES autogroups to get this feature. I just wish I didn't need it for that.
I understand, but I don't want two different ways of accomplishing the same task. If we get AutoGroups, having your suggestion would be confusing -- users will wonder which one they should use to prevent links or they'll ask which one is "better".
Master_Cylinder wrote:Blacklists are one of the features to use resources on, this one doesn't need to be as heavy. Regardless, this one isn't about blacklists although I'm about to start a new blacklist RFC...I think.
No, it's not about blacklists, but the point is that you're not against increasing server load to get anti-spam features. I'd rather get AutoGroups (and the Can post links forum permission) than blacklists. However, I have no problem with getting both -- even though I probably wouldn't use the blacklists -- because I realize that other admins want different features than I do. :) (In other words, I don't take the "all I care about is..." approach.)
Master_Cylinder wrote:Since I'm not a dev I have no idea, that *seemed* to be what he was saying and nobody said anything differently, so I have to take it at face value. I don't think popularity (or a lack of) has anything to do with which ideas are accepted and which are rejected. I think it only matters if the devs want it or not...and who writes the first PR when there are competing ideas on how to do it I guess. ;)
Popularity does matter somewhat. If it didn't, phpBB wouldn't even have the limited Quick Reply that it does now (the devs were adamantly opposed to it).

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
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 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:34 am

No, it wouldn't, because with my solution there wouldn't be a permission for this to use with autogroups. It wouldn't be needed.

No, it's about NOT using a cannon to swat a fly. There are uses for cannons, this just isn't one of them, imho.

IMHO, if none of the devs wanted it then it wouldn't be here, somebody changed their opinion. ;)
These kids today...
Buy them books, send them to school and what do they do?

They eat the paste. :lol:

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

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

Post by DavidIQ » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:52 pm

Pony99CA wrote:
Master_Cylinder wrote: I'm not going to be writing the code so if that's how those decisions are made (first one to write it how they want it wins) then it's a shot in the dark.
I hope that's not how it works. In fact, didn't I ask if phpBB would accept a Pull Request even if many users actually were opposed to the function being implemented? So I hope that merely writing a PR isn't sufficient to get into the core, even if it may be necessary at times.

Steve
PRs get reviewed first before merging and in most cases they go through some changes before that final merge. The reviewer might not like the solution (auto groups vs whatever else has been suggested here or vice versa) and bump it back to the sender for a rewrite. In the case of this RFC it would be up to the reviewer to familiarize themselves with this topic which would be linked somewhere in the ticket which gets referenced by the PR name. This is why PRs sometimes take a while before they get merged.

The point was that nothing is really going to happen here or finalized until someone actually sends a PR.
Image

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 Feb 13, 2014 3:33 am

Master_Cylinder wrote:No, it wouldn't, because with my solution there wouldn't be a permission for this to use with autogroups. It wouldn't be needed.
There should be a permission for links, just like there is for Flash and images. Personally, I think a links permission was far more important than an images permission.
Master_Cylinder wrote:No, it's about NOT using a cannon to swat a fly. There are uses for cannons, this just isn't one of them, imho.
Ignoring how silly the analogy is (AutoGroups won't blow your house away if you use it), if the cannon is there already (or will be), you might as well use it to full effect.

In fact, as you use AutoGroups now, what's wrong with it? You've said that you wish that you didn't have to use it, so why not? Is it because it's a MOD? Have you noticed that your board is noticeably slower?
Master_Cylinder wrote:IMHO, if none of the devs wanted it then it wouldn't be here, somebody changed their opinion. ;)
Don't you think that it's possible that the sheer number of requests (in other words, its popularity) might have been all that was necessary to sway their opinion? I don't know why they reversed their stance (maybe they got some new developers in who wanted it), but isn't it at least possible?

Steve
Last edited by Pony99CA on Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.

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

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

Post by Danielx64 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:44 am

There should be a permission for links, just like there is for Flash and images. Personally, I think a links permission was far more important than an images permission.
I'm in for a permision for links and if one have the time to do autogroup that would be sweet.

*downloads a copy of the latest dev version*

Locked