can one of the admins just make it rejects posts that 1) have a url in them and 2) the word POKER

then I won't be able to talk about poker!

the i love poker board will die!

I meant that clauses 1 and 2 had to be met.

this is like 4 lines of code people

Jon, I think you should be given admin powers, but I realize that's not going to happen any time soon.

because noodles is a cunt!

i am never acting on anything that jon asks for ever again. he is a nasty little shit. jon, fuck off to another site please as promised

alan's pro-spam

sheesh.

I AM SORRY I DON'T APPRECIATE ADMINS ENOUGH.

because noodles is a cunt!

dude, as much as i might hate it, if he hasn't even written a filter to block that sentence from being posted by you, and allowed Graham's lovely login to remain, then you know, keep telling yourself that it's him, not you.

He has shown a really reflexive nastiness towards me for ages from when I image flooded. I tried to be nice and hope he'd come around to treating me with at least a little civility, but eventually I gave up.

Also, doesn't 2 against 1 mean we're right.

forserious answer, cut & pasted from some other stuff on ile:

ok so here's the thing with jon's suggestion -- i'm wary of it. i do lotsa spambot killing (at least some) in my day job and yeah i do the
keyword blocking -- but either you move to a realtime blacklist type thing or you do something which will result in some false positives.
now as far as i'm concerned in the case of ilx i'm all for consistency above all else -- reg only is a consistent policy -- it is either there or not.
any chance of false positives introduces inconsistency and is hackish and will somehow break in a weird way -- especially as keywords
wouldn't just be poker but would also be thisthat and the other.

an optimal but not feasable solution for coding and performance reasons would be baysian for non-logged-in. a feasable solution
performancewise but a pain-in-the-ass for (some) users would be a simplesimple captcha for non-logged-in. it could be on a "post" page
following the main thread page even, so it would only be activated when unregistereds post. img libraries are a mild pain in the ass and small
performance hit so we could even go with a basicbasic text only capcha which would work as long as it was unique to ilx. i.e. "type the word
[blah] into this field: _____" (fieldname could be something deceptive even like "url" to trik spambots even more.

p.s. jon hackish solutions that sometimes give false positives are the sign of a noviceish coder that hasn't had to do often simple things, yeah, but also simple things that never EVER break or confuse ppl. this is for serious advice -- the #1 skill that at least gets me by in my job is not letting hacks pile up.

(p.s. back when i waded thru the ilx code a little, the accumulation of hackish overgrowth was already significant & the coders have since done much work to improve it, i understand. if you let this stuff pile up one day it is unmanagable and will EAT YOU ALIVE)

things will break and you will have NO IDEA what is going on!

PS- Sterling, just because you don't like me doesn't mean you shouldn't address the fact that the proposed spam checker would need to match all 3 criteria I suggested. How will this ever cause false positives? I'm really sure the admins want to implement baysian filtering for a fucking messageboard.

PPS - This is obnoxious. You are really rude.

heh well in all seriousness Jon, and i hope a serious answer isn't wasted on you, i can totally understand how it comes across that way sometimes. but since i know the guy pretty well in person, i can tell you that in text he's usually just blunt, and often when he's short on time he types in seemingly cryptic sentence fragments that could mean anything and are OFTEN misinterpreted. i make fun of it all the time really. did you know that online you do come across as pretty irritating? well, some of us have noticed that. i suspect he was genuinely cranky with you here and there, but there's no anger behind it. he loves kittens. now stop making me defend the guy! (cause the dumbass will never do it for himself cause he doesn't actually worry about what people here think - drives me nuts)

Friend of dickhead in taking dickhead's side shocka.

yeah, if it comes to that, of course i am! also feel free to ignore all the bits where i blamed him for being undiplomatic and making no damn sense sometimes.

Look, you're not going to convince me.

i know, i know, your rep. have it your way! all i can do now is refer you back to my first post on this thread. we shouldn't do this again sometime.

Hitler had friends too.

Dude Jon, be more zen about this. If you insist on insulting someone like Noodles, he wont exactly warm to you in a hurry will he?

jon someone posted a cute example of a false positive on one of the ile threads.

look, it is v. simple. your solution is BAD. but you are right that we CAN write a good solution. as I pointed out baysian IS too hard, and that's why i suggest NOT doing it.

how is a simple captcha that much harder?

i'm speaking from experience writing systems that ppl. have to use and live with and maintain and etc. yr. a smart guy and probably a good coder, or at least scripter, but you're just not thinking along those lines, ok? i have seen every hackish fix i've done or anyone else has done, with v. few exceptions, blow up at one point or another.

jury-rigging code is bad and sets a bad precedent. yr. thinking like a sysadmin to whom users are the enemy and fuckem if they can't go with the flow and figure things out, not like a developer to whom users are the whole point.

(p.s. kim, i think yr. thinking of someone else? i'm not noodles. tho i mean, thanks and all)

Why is my solution bad? It is not elegant but I'm not seeing a flood of legit logged out users writing posts about poker with urls in them.

Sterling, I have written a php auditing system built into a web based sftp client that is used by 900+ PHP developers. It does all kinds of voodoo to stop people from writing code that violates policy. Your argument is also kind of silly and stupid. Your ivory tower mentality is foolish.

I wouldn't have a problem with a captcha, but I don't see a huge problem with a few rare logged out posts not working.

Sterling haha no! i'm pretty sure i know know who i'm talking about! Zac and Jon have this ongoing Blur/Oasis thing that's quite ridiculous, and you'll see that our fruitful discussion that ended with "Hitler" began before you posted.

oh sorry, i guess you did post up at the top as well. i didn't mean to confuse you.

As long as I'm Blur.

Its a lose/lose proposition in my opinion.

you only say that because Oasis are way worse.

(I know! I'm not much of a Blur fan either.)

at least Blur have "Sing". now go on date Patsy Kensit and tell people to "Oi, shut it!"