All new MODs released in our MOD Database will be announced in here. All support for released MODs needs to take place in here. No new MODs will be accepted into the MOD Database for phpBB2
MOD Name: Anti-Spam: Only Active Members Can Post URLs Author:calamus77 MOD Description: Members must be registered for at least X days and have more than Y posts (configurable on the admin config page) before they can post URLs. Guest user can never post URLs
MOD Version: 1.0.0 (Updated 01/26/07) Tested on phpBB Version: 2.0.22
Support for this MOD needs to be asked within this topic. The phpBB Teams are not responsible or required to give anyone support for this MOD. By installing this MOD, the phpBB Support Team or phpBB MODifications Team may not be able to provide support.
This MOD has only been tested by the phpBB MOD Team with the phpBB version listed in the topic. It may not work in any other versions of phpBB.
Last edited by Extensions Robot on Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
(this is a non-active account manager for the phpBB Extension Customisations Team)
Great MOD. Simple to implement. I'm hoping that this will have impact on spam. My users are getting irritated with all the porn postings and I have noticed that most of the posting are from users who join and immedietly post the crap...
Do you know if there is a way for me to track error messages? I.e. see who tried to post URL and fail?
Thanks,
Yael (TheMistress) "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Awesome!
I'd love to see an option though: since most anyone that posts an URL in their first post is a spammer anyway (at least it is for the forums I run), I'd love to have the option to automagically ban the offender. That would be a timesaver for sure!
Just wondering. But does this mod count [img] tags as url's to?
In other words, if a newly registered user was to post a picture in his first post.. Would the mod block out the picture? Or would it just show.. So in effect only blocking bare http:// adresses..
I run a photoforum where lots of people that register post a picture in the first post. So it wouldnt be user friendly if i aplied this mod if it would block out [img] tags (wich in effect use urls to get the image),
Klomp wrote:
Just wondering. But does this mod count [img] tags as url's to?
Just tested this on my board. Images are posted as URLs so they are blocked in the post. However, I noticed that it's ok for a new user to post images and URLs in the signature.
Any chance of adding the restriction to the signature?
Cheers,
Yael (TheMistress) "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Glad to see that my MOD has been well received. I've done some extensive updates that are in BETA...they are NOT approved by the MOD TEAM yet (just to make sure that's clear), but it can be found here so that anyone who wishes can help me test the updates and offer suggestions:
The new BETA version (again, NOT yet approved) features:
* E-mail report sent to you when a URL post is attempted with configurable e-mail address (or no e-mail address if you don't want a report).
* The report e-mail gives you the username of the attempted poster as well as the text you can put into the Ban E-mail admin page if it appears to be a privately owned domain and a spammer
* The report e-mail includes a copy of the text that the user attempted to post so that you can see if it's an honest mistake or a spammer
* Keeps users from being able to use ANY of the personal profile fields (e.g. Signature, etc.) until after their trial period.
Adding a yes/no to the admin so that you can toggle the personal fields on or off is a good idea. As of the BETA version mentioned above, it is simply blocked, but being able to toggle that off if desired would be nice, so I may add that to the next version of the BETA if I get the chance.
Klomp,
Because the MOD blocks the text "www",".com",".net", etc., it won't allow images. If I were to only block the [ url ] tag, porn spammers would still put in links just without the [ url ] tags surrounding them. So, it blocks anything.
I actually had one user on the forum that I manage type "ewww" and her post got blocked...so there are some drawbacks...guess I should change that to "www.", but that's the only legit e-mail that's been blocked...other than that there's been about 100-200 posts just in the last month that were blocked by this code. I've only had one spam poster that posted a message since I created/installed this in October, and there were no links in either her message or profile...a private message was the only way to contact her...not sure if it was an actual russian girl typing it or if it was a BOT...?
For the most part, though, you can change the settings to only require one legit post and 0 days after registration...most BOTS will never post a post without a URL, so they will end up with 0 posts indefinitely, so the "days" aspect isn't needed...then your users will only have to post one post without an image before they can post their post with an image. This may not eliminate as much spam, but it will eliminate most of it.