| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:56:30 -0500 |
| 2 |
Dean Stephens <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/15/17 14:23, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > What do you think? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the |
| 9 |
> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual |
| 10 |
> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed |
| 11 |
> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads |
| 12 |
> already in place. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> To provide some perspective to those unfamiliar with the actual volumes |
| 15 |
> in consideration here, just on the forums there are typically several |
| 16 |
> "users" manually banned per day for posting spam, and perhaps a dozen or |
| 17 |
> two profiles manually banned because the profiles themselves were spam, |
| 18 |
> in addition to that there are typically hundreds (in some cases |
| 19 |
> thousands) of accounts which are effectively automatically banned due to |
| 20 |
> their spam content or at the very least matching reported user profiles |
| 21 |
> on Stop Forum Spam[1]. Opening a Council bug for each of these would be |
| 22 |
> an insurmountable workload if done manually, and at the very least a |
| 23 |
> ludicrous volume of completely pointless mail to all Council members; |
| 24 |
> but it is *exactly* what would be required by this proposal. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It sounds like you have a major technical problem and you do not even |
| 27 |
attempt to solve it. There are many ways of attempting to divert bots, |
| 28 |
and I don't think we should really be using inability to handle spam as |
| 29 |
excuse not to report your actions. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Of course, regarding multiple replies received, it would probably just |
| 32 |
be reasonable to generate simple periodical reports instead. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
| 37 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives