ID:259310
 May 27 2001, 5:15 pm
|
|
It is 11:10pm EST, and I just had to shut the House of Morte down because someone kept logging on and spamming I HATE MORTE!!! to the point in which nobody could play. I banned the first few key names but they kept coming back with new ones. Is there any way I can avoid this, or am I going to have to keep banning key names until (s)he gets bored? Thanks for your input! ~ Kinetic Sage | |
It is 11:10pm EST, and I just had to shut the House of Morte down because someone kept logging on and spamming I HATE MORTE!!! to the point in which nobody could play. I banned the first few key names but they kept coming back with new ones. Is there any way I can avoid this, or am I going to have to keep banning key names until (s)he gets bored? Thanks for your input! You could try looking at client.address to ban them by their ip. Or you could "silently" ban them by not rejecting their login but only outputting their text to themselves, not the world. In other words, all users in your banned list will assume they are "shouting" to the world when in reality they are only talking to themselves. I've found that this kind of ban is most effective, because from their point of view they are just being ignored and eventually go away. | |
Although support for an arbitrary key charge seems to be a bit on the underwhelming side, you really have to ask yourself--while there are several good reasons someone might need multiple keys, is there any good reason at all for someone to need 10 new keys in as many minutes? Some sort of delay between new keys from the same computer might be helpful reducing this kind of behavoir without imposing too much inconvenience on people who just need a spare key or two.
| |
On 5/29/01 10:49 am Leftley wrote:
Although support for an arbitrary key charge seems to be a bit on the underwhelming side, you really have to ask yourself--while there are several good reasons someone might need multiple keys, is there any good reason at all for someone to need 10 new keys in as many minutes? Some sort of delay between new keys from the same computer might be helpful reducing this kind of behavoir without imposing too much inconvenience on people who just need a spare key or two. Well, a delay might not be peachy, since my brother wants to get into BYOND. Sure, we signed up at different times and all, but what if a parent downloaded BYOND for their two children? I'd be much more supportive of a simple limit. You could pay for more if it was really really necessary, but 6 keys would suffice for any given email address (since 6 is pretty much the maximum family size in industrialised countries). | |
Well, a delay might not be peachy, since my brother wants to get into BYOND. Sure, we signed up at different times and all, but what if a parent downloaded BYOND for their two children? I'm not talking like a week waiting period, or even a full day, probably... just enough to make spamming inconvenient. Say, maybe an hour. A dedicated spammer could still get around it easily, but it would make spur-of-the-moment spam attacks a lot less effective, and it's not an unreasonable restriction--remember, you could always use the guest key in a pinch. I'd be much more supportive of a simple limit. You could pay for more if it was really really necessary, but 6 keys would suffice for any given email address (since 6 is pretty much the maximum family size in industrialised countries). Yeah, this would work too... but email address? | |
I'd be much more supportive of a simple limit. You could pay for more if it was really really necessary, but 6 keys would suffice for any given email address (since 6 is pretty much the maximum family size in industrialised countries). It's a very efficient routine... that is, it's very efficient to force people to sign up with their ISP email address, and to not accept free email for addresses. It does limit users, especially those who prefer to remain more anonymous, but it also gets rid of dummy email addresses. And in that fashion, us designers could seriously, if not completely, eradicate a problem user in less than 6 tries. (Actually, if you want to be a nitpicky English student like me, eradicated is a boolean state, not a scalar quantity. I can't half-eradicate someone; either I eradicate someone, or I don't. This is, of course, different from eradicating HALF a person, which is entirely possible. But that half of a person cannot be half-eradicated. Anyway, I digress. =) | |
thats the problem.. there is no way to make them be board with it.. its all done automaticly now adays.. they have autospammers and all that shit.. i remember when you had to at leas cut and past to spam.. those were the days.. you could ban them once and they would think it was too much work to do in the first place and stop... but nooo... its all computers now...