[spam-stopper] User-agent required when submitting spam?

[Michael Dale]

Not sure. Spammers probably fake that all the time, real users wouldn't so much.

I would just give Akismet as much info as possible and let them work out what is spam or not.

Michael.

On 03/03/2012, at 12:48 PM, james young wrote:

> Yes.
> 
> That question reminds me to ask about proxies, when they report the IP
> making the request; should we pass that along?  It's possibly a useful
> signal, but it's also not verifiable.  But this is perhaps a tangent.
> 
> -James
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Michael Dale <mdale at dalegroup.net> wrote:
>> Are you at least sending the commenter IP address? That plus the comment should be enough I would have thought.
>> 
>> 
>> On 03/03/2012, at 12:39 PM, james young wrote:
>> 
>>> I wasn't talking about the comment check, but about submitting spam.
>>> 
>>> My sense is that it's worth avoiding Mediawiki databases, complexity-wise.
>>> 
>>> -James
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Michael Dale <mdale at dalegroup.net> wrote:
>>>> Why is another table required? Just send the user agent when the user submits the comment/message whatever…
>>>> 
>>>> There should be no need to record the user agent.
>>>> 
>>>> Unless you want to be able to resubmit messages, then I would just create a new column in the existing comments table.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes of course you can submit a fake user agent (or from the looks of it, none at all will work too) but then the anti-spam system will not work as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Michael.
>>>> 
>>>> On 03/03/2012, at 12:18 PM, james young wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hey there -
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm building a new Akismet plugin for Mediawiki, & I've noticed
>>>>> something about submitting spam - the user-agent is necessary.  Is it
>>>>> possible to use a placeholder value, or not submit one at all?  The
>>>>> user agent is easily spoofable, & recording that will require building
>>>>> out a new table in the database, pruning old entries, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's a headache for something of questionable value, is what I'm saying.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -James
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> spam-stopper mailing list
>>>>> spam-stopper at lists.automattic.com
>>>>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-stopper
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> spam-stopper mailing list
>>>> spam-stopper at lists.automattic.com
>>>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-stopper
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spam-stopper mailing list
>>> spam-stopper at lists.automattic.com
>>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-stopper
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> spam-stopper mailing list
>> spam-stopper at lists.automattic.com
>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-stopper
> _______________________________________________
> spam-stopper mailing list
> spam-stopper at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-stopper