SMS??? 8O Do you really think of the Short Messages used by cellphones?
And why is it 100% accurate? You could use Internet SMS services, or- as a dumb spam mailer- write a script for it, which is not very more accurate- or safe- than emailing I think.
Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
I don't like these cold, precise, perfect people, who, in order not to speak wrong, never speak at all, and in order not to do wrong, never do anything. (Henry Ward Beecher)
Die Stifthelden
Die Stifthelden
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
Basically it'll work, as it will be too expensive for spammers to send SMS... such "marketing" is only so attractive because its cheap / costs nothing (nearly). But the users might be upset or not willing to pay either...
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
You- and me- could get tons of SMS for nothing -or special programms and an own web server, then you could sent SMS for your own, with your own numbers.
And there is SMS spamming as well as mail spamming, there are mobile viruses as well as computer ones, so I don't see why SMS should be more safe than email.
And- back to topic- I think customized questions are more safe than SMS.
And there is SMS spamming as well as mail spamming, there are mobile viruses as well as computer ones, so I don't see why SMS should be more safe than email.
And- back to topic- I think customized questions are more safe than SMS.
I don't like these cold, precise, perfect people, who, in order not to speak wrong, never speak at all, and in order not to do wrong, never do anything. (Henry Ward Beecher)
Die Stifthelden
Die Stifthelden
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:43 am
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
Not to mention the "Keep your grandma in mind" theory that's stated so often here.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:13 pm
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
Ill say, I dont have a cellphone, and Ill be damned if Im going to pay for a SMS message every time I want to get into a forum just to leave a "thanks" or access a download.
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
I have found that bots almost always choose the first or the last style. Humans almost always select the default.
- Highway of Life
- Registered User
- Posts: 1399
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:18 pm
- Location: I'd love to change the World, but they won't give me the Source Code
- Contact:
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
it was a joke, in case it was a bit obscure.
Of course, it does not bode well for Grandma, and the folks who do NOT have a cell phone.
But it's really good at preventing spambot registrations, since it requires 2 things:
A valid phone number.
A Cell phone to go with it.
Anyways, it's a moot point, it's not a viable option for forum registrations.
Anyways, I always prefer the "hidden" ways to beat the spambot registrations rather than require the human to jump through extra loopholes to register on the board.
Of course, it does not bode well for Grandma, and the folks who do NOT have a cell phone.
But it's really good at preventing spambot registrations, since it requires 2 things:
A valid phone number.
A Cell phone to go with it.
Anyways, it's a moot point, it's not a viable option for forum registrations.
Anyways, I always prefer the "hidden" ways to beat the spambot registrations rather than require the human to jump through extra loopholes to register on the board.
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
Highway of Life wrote: Anyways, I always prefer the "hidden" ways to beat the spambot registrations
"Now you will experience the full power of the dark side."
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2001 5:57 am
- Location: Singapore
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
For my current phpBB board I have this mod where users need to have 10 posts and above in order to post links.
Re: Better Spambot Protection in phpBB3?
I must say that the little board with my phpBB 3 test has not (yet) been visited by spammers.
Reason is (I guess) that I never talked of this test reporting the internet address.
But I would like to share one experience that I cannot exactly understand: I have set a different test board phpBB version 2, featuring the famous (or notorious ???) MOD Anti Bot Question. Apparently is really difficult to enter with automatic systems: you must answer correctly to an always changing quiz.
For my special needs I used what is called a Rebus: 5 of them really! One small image, some letters over objects, and you have to extract from this operation a phrase. More, the result was in Italian! 8O More: the Rebusses were easy, but not too much easy!
Do you know? Some people from Russia (according the data), or from USA could enter the anti spam the same. I cannot imagine how! 8O 8O 8O
Reason is (I guess) that I never talked of this test reporting the internet address.
But I would like to share one experience that I cannot exactly understand: I have set a different test board phpBB version 2, featuring the famous (or notorious ???) MOD Anti Bot Question. Apparently is really difficult to enter with automatic systems: you must answer correctly to an always changing quiz.
For my special needs I used what is called a Rebus: 5 of them really! One small image, some letters over objects, and you have to extract from this operation a phrase. More, the result was in Italian! 8O More: the Rebusses were easy, but not too much easy!
Do you know? Some people from Russia (according the data), or from USA could enter the anti spam the same. I cannot imagine how! 8O 8O 8O
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
(Thomas Alva Edison)
(Thomas Alva Edison)