From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | <gevik(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Broken? http://www.postgresql.org/about/ |
Date: | 2005-11-17 16:18:37 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E10C@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Treat [mailto:xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net]
> Sent: 17 November 2005 16:12
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: gevik(at)xs4all(dot)nl; pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Broken? http://www.postgresql.org/about/
>
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 05:28, Dave Page wrote:
> > BTW, how goes the form submission verification?
> >
>
> I heard an interesting twist on this... rather than doing image
> verification, you instead reject submissions that come from page that
> don't contain a postgresql.org refferrer on the submission page. The
> idea being the spam bots post directly to the submission
> page, but users
> navigate thier way into the page. simple (and transparent to the user)
> but apparently very effective for some folks that have
> implemented it.
Sounds like a good idea, except legitimate clients might not send it (I
don't know off-hand if any do offer a way to stop it, but it seems like
a sensible privacy option). Also I imagine it would be really easy to
add it to the spam bots, so I doubt it'll be long before it stops
working for them as well.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-17 16:24:16 | Re: Broken? http://www.postgresql.org/about/ |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-11-17 16:12:24 | Re: Broken? http://www.postgresql.org/about/ |