On 4/10/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote: I'm not sure how to implement black or whitelisting for nofollow... :( Right now we do our URL blacklist at page submission, thats not a fast path so we can do computationally expensive things like apply a long list of regexes... to black or whitelist URLs for nofollow we'd need to perform it at page load, which might not be acceptable. The only alternatives I can see involve complex changes. For example, we could extend our external link syntax so that you must explicitly tag links in order to prevent them from being no-followed, and the black or whitelist would control which links are allowed to be tagged. Can a developer please comment on the idea of applying a external links filter at page load time? Nofollow per namespace would actually be really good. If we had per-namespace nofollow right now I'd enable it everywhere except the main namespace ... you can argue that the main ns links are reviewed and are of some quality, but that doesn't extend to anywhere else.

On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: FWIW, Anons are not a real spam liability.. anyone competent enough to be a significant annoyance is able to make an account. The template solution you've proposed is effectively an extension to the wikitext syntax... I don't see a reason to overload the template system for that purpose... just extend the syntax if thats what we really want. "And then a miracle occurs"... Making that scale will be a challenge. ...and still doesn't cover the cases of spam on namespaces that get less attention.

Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...> writes: Well, I'm a developer wanna-be and not a real developer :-) but if we set aside for a moment the policy type questions about whitelisting and nofollow, whitelisting does not need to be the same process as blacklisting. For blacklisting, we need fancy regexes because people will try to get around the list - for whitelist, we could probably define a much simpler validation (to be applied when the parser parses the url) because if someone is posting an url that is whitelisted, they will know what url they're trying to match. There's still an issue of scale - checking against thousands or tens of thousand of whitelisted urls may not be feasible - but calling "in_array" for example is probably *much* faster than bunches of regexes. -Aerik

Gregory Maxwell wrote: Ask and ye shall receive: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5523 -- Ilmari Karonen