Timeline for Please don't use a spam filter based on IP address
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
42 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 17:12 | history | edited | Anne Daunted GoFundMonica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor spelling
|
| Jan 23, 2016 at 21:57 | comment | added | Pacerier | @RobertHarvey, If you don't see how SE has any responsibility to cater to Tor, then that should be what you have written: "SE doesn't have to cater to Tor". Notice how this is a far cry from what you wrote: "don't have to cater to the terminally paranoid". For the first assertion, you'll find more people disagreeing with you when compared to the second one. Follow up at "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.." | |
| Jan 23, 2016 at 1:57 | comment | added | user102937 | @Pacerier: Even if I stipulate to Tor's "ordinary" purposes, I still don't see how SE has any responsibility for catering to their (arguably flawed) design. | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 22:57 | comment | added | Pacerier | I linked to torproject.org because it seems like you have not read "Normal people use Tor". Seeing that OP would rather post a thread on meta than using non-Tor network, we can note that he "want to be anonymous" as per the Lifehacker article states. | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 22:57 | comment | added | Pacerier | @RobertHarvey, That part of my comment was an attempt to pull the discourse towards the direction of intellectual honesty. (I'm surprised you didn't catch that.) In short, focus on the dialectical method instead of mentioning stuff for "debate points". Do not be absurd. Even if the rationale for such absurdity is an attempt to demonstrate possible absurdity in a subject. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 18:54 | comment | added | user102937 | @Pacerier: That part of my comment was "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." Read the comment again, without including the phrase about overthrowing governments (ending at the phrase "I doubt any of those conditions apply to the OP), and you will see that the view of that lifehacker article is not at all incompatible with the links you provided (filed under "I'm surprised I have to explain this"). | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 17:35 | comment | added | Pacerier | @RobertHarvey, Tor project isn't about overthrowing governments. Tor's objectives can be found at torproject.org and torproject.org/about/overview. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 21:11 | comment | added | user102937 | @Pacerier: This Lifehacker article states Tor's objectives as "If you want to be anonymous—say, if you live under a dictatorship, you're a journalist in an oppressive country, or a hacker looking to stay hidden from the government." I doubt any of those conditions apply to the OP, and even if they do, it's not like we're trying to overthrow any governments here. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 20:49 | comment | added | Pacerier | @RobertHarvey, At times it's an infrastructure problem: whole sites and proxies are banned from certain areas of the world. Also, Tor is not just for the "terminally paranoid", in fact that wasn't even its design goal. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 19:44 | comment | added | user148312 | As to your second remark, you prove my point. Could you please post some numbers as to how many requests/second for one ip address will cause a block. I bet you these are much to tight. These shouldn't be absolute values anyways, because say it's the wee hours of the night, and there would be only one user doing requests. Who cares if that user does 1000, 10000 or 100000 requests per second. It's all relative to your actual load. As I said before, the tor network is slow! The tor nodes would probably come to a grinding halt before SE would. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 19:36 | comment | added | user148312 | On google it happens also sometimes that captcha's never resolve, however it's less hassle to search another search engine than to store your hard labored answer to some question to post it at some later date. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 14:58 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | The CAPTCHA problems are probably unrelated to Tor, unless Google also has issues with it - we rely on ReCAPTCHA for this. To answer your second question: all it takes is too many requests being pushed through a single exit point. There are dozens of logged-in users going through these, and who knows how many anonymous readers - all it takes is a few of them being a little bit too active at the same time. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 5:24 | history | edited | user148312 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed proposal to read cookie also before rejecting simple GET requests
|
| May 20, 2014 at 5:17 | comment | added | user148312 | @Shog9 I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Clearly the spam part of my proposal (the most important part) deals with posting, which obviously should be dealt with after reading the cookie information, thus distinguishing different users. The other part is not much elaborated, because I just can't figure out which kind of scenario generates such a high server load from tor exit nodes. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 2:39 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Re: your edit - you seem to be missing the point. We don't treat Tor specially - that's why you're running into problems. If we could reliably distinguish your requests from those of other users, you wouldn't be having a bad time - but of course, that's exactly what Tor is designed to prevent us from doing! We don't know who you are until you've already managed to get past a whole bunch of checks - once we do, it's smooth sailing, but getting that far in the first place is where you're running into trouble. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 0:21 | history | edited | user148312 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 285 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2014 at 23:54 | history | edited | user148312 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added proposal and explication why this is not a feature request
|
| May 19, 2014 at 20:36 | answer | added | Shog9Mod | timeline score: 59 | |
| May 19, 2014 at 20:16 | comment | added | Ry- | @AdamDavis: Well, Google does exactly that to Tor users in exactly the same way. They generally use Startpage to get around it, because it’s just a proxy for Google search, but that really wouldn’t work for Stack Exchange. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 20:09 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Servy restrictions and rate limiting as described in this post is clearly disenfranchising. It may not be prohibitive, but if Google were doing the same to you, you'd switch to another search engine rather than put up with it. I suppose I could have hedged and said, "prevents easy, quick use of the site" but the end result is the same - pain, annoyance, and a big, "We really don't like you, but we will grudgingly tolerate you" sort of experience. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 20:05 | history | edited | Adam LearStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| S May 19, 2014 at 20:05 | history | suggested | Nick Stauner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling, punctuation, capitalization, numeric list formatting, <sup>, ---, noise removal
|
| May 19, 2014 at 20:04 | comment | added | Servy | @minitech As Tim mentiones in his post, it likely wouldn't be whitelisted or blacklisted outright, but rather used as one parameter to the "how likely is this post spam" algorithm. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 20:03 | comment | added | Ry- | @Servy: Anyways, I believe it could because of that list, but I thought about it for a bit, and it’s… just not a good idea, for the reasons mentioned in both current answers. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 20:03 | comment | added | Servy | @minitech Then mention that to Tim, it sounds like he'd be interested. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 20:01 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 19, 2014 at 20:05 | |||||
| May 19, 2014 at 20:00 | answer | added | Pollyanna | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 19, 2014 at 20:00 | comment | added | Ry- | @Servy: I did read the post. Did you read my link? It’s the official Tor project site, requiring no verification. It isn’t always right – note that those are false negatives, not positives – but it’s certainly enough to help. (I’m not sure whether Tim was aware of it.) | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:59 | comment | added | Servy | @minitech Did you read the post. Tim specifically mentioned the existence of such sites, and simply stated that the data gets stale too quickly to be useful, in addition to the fact that the verification is prohibitively expensive. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:58 | comment | added | Servy | @AdamDavis SE doesn't prevent use of the site to all TOR users. It adds restrictions, rate-limits the amount of contributions that can made much more aggressively than would be typical, results in more captchas, etc., but it doesn't prohibit contributions entirely. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:58 | comment | added | Ry- | @Servy: Yes, it could. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:56 | history | edited | user148312 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 23 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2014 at 19:56 | comment | added | Servy | @minitech No, SE couldn't whitelist Tor exit nodes. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:56 | comment | added | Pollyanna | While it may be sound to make a business decision that disenfranchises all tor users, it certainly isn't kind to react this way to one trying to use your service. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:50 | history | edited | user148312 |
we can differ in opinions, but such bad user experience is a bug, not a feature...
|
|
| May 19, 2014 at 19:50 | answer | added | Ry- | timeline score: 10 | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:48 | history | edited | user102937 |
edited tags
|
|
| May 19, 2014 at 19:47 | comment | added | user102937 | No, but we don't have to cater to the terminally paranoid either. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:46 | comment | added | user148312 | @RobertHarvey not your call to make | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:46 | comment | added | user102937 | Stop using Tor with Stack Exchange. No, really. What are you worried about, anyway? A bunch of guys in black suits knocking your door down at 2 in the morning because you downloaded the latest Harry Potter movie from a Torrent? News flash: we don't care about your warez. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:44 | comment | added | Ry- | You don’t have to be a bot to spam. Anyways, I suppose Stack Exchange could whitelist Tor exit nodes. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 19:42 | history | asked | user148312 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |