LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  October 2011

CODE4LIB October 2011

Subject:

Re: web spam block less awful than Captcha?

From:

Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:31:30 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

In addition to the methods mentioned here which I've had good experiences
with, another thing that can be effective is simply checking the fields for
inappropriate content.

For example, bots love to try to insert links, raw HTML, things that belong
in mail headers, etc. On the off chance that a human had a reason for
including such content, you can tell them why their input wasn't accepted so
there's no risk of a legit communication silently disappearing and they can
still get help.

Captcha is effective, but it sucks from the user end. I screw those up a
huge percentage of the time, and can't believe I'm the only one with that
problem.

kyle

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Ken Irwin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Using Dre and Erin's method, I've got a fix in place. It caught two spams
> in the first 10 minutes!
>
> I named the field <text name="confirm_email"> to see if I can trick it into
> knowing exactly what to fill in. I just realized that I didn't echo the
> results of that field in my notification of the possible spam; I'm going to
> catch it from now on and see if that trick seems to work on them.
>
> It's good to hear that JAWS is respecting the "display: none" now; I'm
> going to check with my usability posse and see if there are any other tricks
> to know here...
>
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] web spam block less awful than Captcha?
>
> Is there a particular label you give it that causes spambots to fill it
> out, or you find that spambots stick some text in any <input type="text">
> you include?
>
> On 10/24/2011 10:46 AM, Erin R White/FS/VCU wrote:
> > I'll second Dre's method here. We've used it with great success on our
> > mobile website - it adds zero effort for users and we've had maybe one
> > false positive since March 2010.
> >
> > The field is input type="text" with CSS hiding it and its label from
> > display. From my extensive googling it like as of JAWS 10 (released
> > 2009), elements hidden by CSS aren't read, but I'm not sure about
> > support from other readers. I'm assuming some kind of "skip" mechanism
> > will be built in to WAI-ARIA too.
> >
> > <label for="spam_city" class="hidden">Spam catcher - do not complete
> > this field</label> <input type="text" name="spam_city" class="hidden"
> > />
> >
> > --
> > Erin White
> > Web Applications Developer, VCU Libraries
> > 804-827-3552 | [log in to unmask] | http://library.vcu.edu/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:   Ken Irwin<[log in to unmask]>
> > To:     [log in to unmask]
> > Date:   10/24/2011 10:35 AM
> > Subject:        Re: [CODE4LIB] web spam block less awful than Captcha?
> > Sent by:        Code for Libraries<[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> >
> > This is an intriguing approach, Dre. I wonder how to render this
> > non-problematic for folks with screen-readers too. You could just say
> > "leave this field blank" but that's sort of weird too. Is there a
> > WAI-ARIA approach that would get screen readers to hide this field too?
> >
> > I'm looking into Mollom too -- looks like that could work in a few
> > areas of our site.
> >
> > Thanks all!
> > Ken
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > Of Andreas Orphanides
> > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:13 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] web spam block less awful than Captcha?
> >
> >
> > Here's a method that's by no means foolproof but is practically zero
> > cost (you may be using a version already). Disclaimer -- I have not
> > actually tested this to any extent:
> >
> > Include a text input field in your form that needs to be blank for the
> > form to validate in the back end. Keep the field hidden with CSS (or
> > z-indexed behind another element, size set to zero, etc). Users will
> > never see it, so their forms will validate; I doubt that most spambots
> > are sophisticated enough to check whether a form field is hidden or
> > obfuscated before filling it in. Then silently reject submissions with
> > that field filled.
> >
> > I am not sure whether this would cause any problems with tab
> > navigation, screen readers or other assistive technologies, but you
> > may be able to do something to sidestep those issues.... On the other
> > hand, captcha brings its own host of accessibility problems.
> >
> > One other disadvantage is that this might be hard to implement in a
> > CMS-based form plugin. But if you're coding forms the old-fashioned
> > way, it's worth a shot.
> >
> > -dre.
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Banerjee
Digital Services Program Manager
Orbis Cascade Alliance
[log in to unmask] / 503.877.9773

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1110&L=CODE4LIB&P=166999
lists.clir.org
CC-MAIN-2023-14
62532
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YYHIJCWI7OSSRIMKRYA2BFDYJBC4QHHL
<urn:uuid:e59d6484-824a-465c-8020-839f3a326cbc>
2023-03-30T18:38:23Z
66.175.211.245
text/html
sha1:MD6UFKD3QXHPDW52UIT35FIQWZRJE6MA
<urn:uuid:23c83631-8414-4461-91c5-12fb5b519832>
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1110&L=CODE4LIB&P=166999
response
<urn:uuid:0e6480a9-17c2-41af-9ce4-dc783bf8e36a>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-14
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-84
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/