Although, thinking about the e-mail form a bit, do we need it, as opposed to just using a mailto link? The form is nice because is fills in the user's default e-mail address, but most of the messages we get are from people who either aren't Buffistas yet, or have forgotten their username or password, and therefore aren't logged in anyway. For them, the form doesn't really provide any more functionality than a mailto would, does it?
The Bay City Rollers, now that's music.
Giles ,'Sleeper'
Buffistas Building a Better Board ++
Do you have problems, concerns, or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
DXMachina - Oct 14, 2005 5:22:06 pm PDT #665 of 4671
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
§ ita § - Oct 14, 2005 5:32:08 pm PDT #666 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
The form means that people who don't have access to their e-mail clients can still send messages to the admins.
Eddie - Oct 14, 2005 5:39:36 pm PDT #667 of 4671
Your tag here.
can we capture their IP address
You'll want to be careful about blocking IP addresses. You can quickly block all aol.com users because they use proxy servers, for example.
a mailto link
Spambots look for mailto links, so that may make things worse. This may help with this problem, however: [link]
Edit: ita makes a good point about email clients.
§ ita § - Oct 14, 2005 5:42:14 pm PDT #668 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
We already have a mailto link on the page. That genie's out of the bottle.
DXMachina - Oct 14, 2005 6:07:30 pm PDT #669 of 4671
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
You'll want to be careful about blocking IP addresses. You can quickly block all aol.com users because they use proxy servers, for example.
Yeah, we know that. Not talking about blocking IPs, more like reporting the little morons to abuse at their ISP if we can track them down.
The original scripts were launched with AOL return addresses as I recall.
Eddie - Oct 14, 2005 6:14:00 pm PDT #670 of 4671
Your tag here.
Is the problem the volume of emails sent? If so, perhaps setting a time limit per IP address would be a workable solution; i.e., one email per address per hour.
Matt the Bruins fan - Oct 15, 2005 2:17:56 am PDT #671 of 4671
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand
Yeah, we know that. Not talking about blocking IPs, more like reporting the little morons to abuse at their ISP if we can track them down.
If you find any way to track them back to physical addresses Jay & Silent Bob-style, please let me know. I've just spent 20 straight hours at work, much of the last 3 a yard away from an uncontrollably defecating rabbit. It would be a shame to let all this rage go to waste when there are typing fingers somewhere that need breaking.
Topic!Cindy - Oct 15, 2005 2:40:49 am PDT #672 of 4671
What is even happening?
As for blocking b.org addresses -- dammit, I hate those kids. We shouldn't have to do that. There are legit (though avoidable) reasons to accept b.org addresses.
Can you block them all, and then make exceptions for the legit ones?
Laura - Oct 15, 2005 4:29:43 am PDT #673 of 4671
Our wings are not tired.
Would having one of those graphic boxes where you have to type in the random characters help? I see that often.
§ ita § - Oct 15, 2005 5:26:03 am PDT #674 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Can you block them all, and then make exceptions for the legit ones?
That requires maintenance still. It's a pretty good chance that no one with a b.org address needs to use that form, since only admins have one, pretty much.
It's the principle of the thing that bugs me.
And I hate the graphic boxes, not least of all because one time in four I get them wrong myself. And I'm supposed to have good eyes.