Auge wrote:Many websites still using unsecured HTTP, even with declining tendency. On the other hand your proposal will not work with spam links using HTTPS. So your proposal doesn't work.
Well, if we block straight http and someone put "https" the http is still broken isn't it ? So even if there's like, I don't know, an extra s, it still breaks it.
Though I wonder if it's possible to ban a word just from a portion. Maybe any post with "http" should just be blocked.
If you block URLs with the protocol HTTP, you'll block all
of these URLs, not only spam links
. It's a classic case of overblocking. On the other hand you'll miss that way all spam links, noted with the protocol HTTPS. Solution would be to forbid HTTPS-links too.
YNM wrote:Also, is it possible for such things to be implemented perfectly ?
Is a perfect spam filter possible? No, it isn't.
skippern wrote:There are several browsers that now handles URLs without the http part, like "://tt-forums.com/" and the browser automatically amends HTTPS/HTTP
This is a valid behavior. On that way one can note an URL in a link (i.e. //:example.com) as protocol relative URL
. If the page was requested via HTTP, the link in it would get the protocol HTTP (http//:example.com) and when the page was requested with HTTPS also the link would get the protocol HTTPS (https//:example.com). Nowadays the technique is more or less obsolete
(therefore read the update in the head of the article).
skippern wrote:Another way is to only allow URLs from white listed sites, if moderators have access to edit the whitelist it wouldn't be too difficult to add your site to it.
You don't like the forum team, ehh?
Every time, someone wants to link to a site, which is not on the whitelist, she/he must register the URL of the site/page to the whitelist and the curator of this list must check the URL for it's reliability? Looks not to be very practicable to me.