| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun 26 Apr 2020 10:08:32 GMT, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> The other major problem is spam protection. The best semi-anonymous way |
| 5 |
> I see is to use submitter's IPv4 addresses (can we support IPv6 then?). |
| 6 |
> We could set a limit of, say, 10 submissions per IPv4 address per week. |
| 7 |
> If some address would exceed that limit, we could require CAPTCHA |
| 8 |
> authorization. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I think this would make spamming a bit harder while keeping submissions |
| 11 |
> easy for the most, and a little harder but possible for those of us |
| 12 |
> behind ISP NATs. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think that the IPv6 support shouldn’t be a question. I have several |
| 15 |
points for it: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1. All the Gentoo infrastructure is IPv6-able (at least the public |
| 18 |
faced as I’m aware), so it could create a specific case |
| 19 |
2. As you mention NAT ISPs, most of those are providing IPv6 as well |
| 20 |
(because NAT isn’t cost-less). Also putting the IPv4 rate-limit to a |
| 21 |
/64 IPv6 will reduce the need for a CAPTCHA. |
| 22 |
3. Users don’t necessary have an IPv4 access |
| 23 |
4. About a third of the Internet traffic is IPv6, so it’s not an |
| 24 |
option in my humble opinion. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Alarig |
Archives