>>313 Not all the IPs they use are from China. More aggressive rangebans will likely be coming soon.

>>313 I kinda think it would be apt to implement captcha. I don't think anybody here minds solving captchas and it would sort the bot problem right out without having to worry about accidentally banning anons.

>>315 I at least have come to appreciate posting without the captcha, and I'd like to remain captcha free if possible. If it does end up being necessary it's only a button press away from being enabled. I don't believe the problem has gotten that bad yet. For the rangebans we've decided not to block the use of block bypasses for these ranges (basically like a captcha for those rangebanned) and if there's any troubles they can always send in an email and I'll work to remedy it. That being said, I doubt that it'll affect many if any Anons. While not all IPs are from China, I'd say at least half are and the other regions tend to be places like Taiwan, Korea, or India.

>>316 Death to chinkbots!

>>316 >rangeban enables captcha This is a really elegant initial solution, I like it. It will be interesting to see how much that cuts down on the spam over the next month or so. I agree that it's very nice to not have any captcha to post. It'll probably become necessary at some point if this sites popularity ever happens to take off, but until then it's good to keep the captcha-free luxury rolling as long as possible.

On a different note, just noticed that I'm glowing ^:) ID: fed218

Another observation and potential suggestion. I've noticed nearly all of the spambots include a lot of junk in the name and subject fields. What about something like this? If the combined total amount of characters in the name and subject fields exceeds a set number, like 20, captcha is required.

>>337 I haven't really noticed anything that could be used to consistently identify the spambot, and adding a captcha like that would likely not be super straightforward. I will say that the more aggressive rangebans we've been doing do seem to be making a noticeable difference. I think as long as we keep it up, things will continue to improve.

I have noticed that the spam bots only go to certain threads, and I think they choose that based on some kind of algorithm. Wouldn't it be possible to make a trap thread for the bots that tics off all of the algorithm's thread finding sense and autodeletes all new posts in it? Just an idea I had, might no really be how the bots work.

>>399 >I have noticed that the spam bots only go to certain threads, and I think they choose that based on some kind of algorithm. It's probably all automated, seems like once it selects a thread it will always return to it in the future. >Wouldn't it be possible to make a trap thread for the bots that tics off all of the algorithm's thread finding sense and autodeletes all new posts in it? Unlikely. Who really knows what metric it goes by. Likely just whatever comes up in it's search. I will say that the spam situation is a lot better these days. There are times now that we even go multiple days without a single spam post. There has been a slight uptick over the past couple days, they probably got in a new batch of IPs, but once they blow through those we'll likely be back to seeing less and less of them.

>>433 What for?

What's next, you will post actual Rule 0 to illustrate your point, you fucking moron?

>>432 >>433 Why would you want a delay if it's something to be removed? Anyway, you could probably look into https://gitgud.io/LynxChan/LynxChanAddon-AutoBan as a starting point. Be aware that this addon was designed for Lynxchan 2.0 so it may need some updating to work with newer versions.

>>480 Who the fuck are you and what the fuck you have to do with this board?