From time to time I browse the comments that Akismet (the spam detector used by WordPress) has intercepted just to check that a useful comment hasn’t been unjustly labelled as spam; and a couple of days ago I was surprised to find that four comments (from the same person) had been marked as spam even though there was no obvious reason why they had been so marked.
They were clearly rubbish, of course – one expressed suprise that I hadn’t published my resume [sic] (it could do with an acute accent over the final e, but apart from that it’s American for C.V. ), another expressed the opinion that my blog showed I had no experience with ACTUAL [sic] working databases … and so on.
But how had Akismet worked out that these comments were garbage ?
The author had supplied a gmail account name – and I think that comments from the gmail domain have triggered spam exclusion in the past but only when the comment included a hyperlink. Then I thought of tracing the IP address that WordPress has captured – and it turned out to lead back to an “anonymizing proxy server”.
Clever trick that – if it’s coming from someone who’s trying to hide, a comment probably deserves to be binned.
So true. Anyone commenting on a blog such as this from one of those deserves to be binned, no second thoughts.
This day and age, there is no possible justification for the usual “political” or “freedom of speech” reasons.
This is a purely technical blog, anyone seeking anonimity under such conditions is almost always a troll or a spammer.
One of the reasons I’ve turned on comment moderation in mine: nothing I love more than to simply ignore idiotic troll/spam comments.
Comment by Noons — November 5, 2009 @ 6:34 am UTC Nov 5,2009 |
Curiosity, and the urge to investigate, is wonderful. Less than two hours after I had posted this note someone had tried to route through another “anonymiser” to add a “test if this is rejected” comment. It was.
Tracing the IP back, I found that the first hop from the proxy server was the aptly named: gw-telia.heisenberg.router.{etc}
Comment by Jonathan Lewis — November 5, 2009 @ 8:28 am UTC Nov 5,2009 |
I tried to post a comment here yesterday evening through an anonymiser to test if it was rejected.
I also filled in my EMail and activated the box “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.”
Message was rejected.
Anyway, I am “subscribed to this post” and receive EMails about new comments.
Don’t know if this is intended by Akismet or if this is a bug.
Comment by Sokrates — November 5, 2009 @ 8:38 am UTC Nov 5,2009 |
Sokrates,
So you were the one that came through “heisenberg” – I was most amused that someone decided to check my hypothesis. Thanks.
Comment by Jonathan Lewis — November 5, 2009 @ 9:07 pm UTC Nov 5,2009 |
Yeah, Jonathan, where *is* your *coff*resume*coff*?! *{;-)
Comment by Boneist — November 5, 2009 @ 9:13 am UTC Nov 5,2009 |
Boneist,
I have to admit that only three people have asked me (seriously) for a C.V. in the last 12 or so years – two apologised for doing so and said they had to because it was company policy (I just sent them a list of the FTSE 100 companies I had worked for), and the third was an employee in a contract agency fronting a “big company” and didn’t know any better.
But if you check out the link to the O-1 visa notes from this posting you’ll see that I managed to supply the US government with “Evidence of employment in a critical or essential capacity for organizations with a distinguished reputation.” That’s probably a better guide to ability that a simple C.V.
Comment by Jonathan Lewis — November 5, 2009 @ 9:02 pm UTC Nov 5,2009 |
*{;-)
I personally think that your blog, forum, books, presentations etc are a better guide to your ability than a simple C.V. would ever be. That is, if we could be bothered to read right to the end of something that must surely be a million pages long! (I exagerate, of course, but only by a couple of thousand or so *{;-) )
Comment by Boneist — November 6, 2009 @ 11:35 am UTC Nov 6,2009 |
Hmmm, so we’re trying to think of an American with a fondness for capital letters who thinks themself an expert on internet anonymisation and believes that you hide your c.v. blah blah blah?
It’s a genuine mystery.
(I just made that word “anonymisation” up).
Comment by David Aldridge — November 5, 2009 @ 10:41 am UTC Nov 5,2009 |
David,
(I just made that word “anonymisation” up).
No you didn’t, I made it up the night before – but it looked so disgusting I decided not to use it in public.
Comment by Jonathan Lewis — November 5, 2009 @ 9:05 pm UTC Nov 5,2009 |
trying to look up anonymisation in the online oxford dictionary found no matches in either the US or UK version however the quote of the week did seem somehow appropriate.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair (1878–1968), American writer
Comment by chris — November 6, 2009 @ 1:42 pm UTC Nov 6,2009 |
This is all very entertaining, but I must speak up and say I see various systems with way too many false positives, and others with way too sensitive moderation. Let the anon posts speak for themselves, and keep at least backup human intelligence in the spam detection.
You are wrong Noons, there are still plenty of reasons. I’m just too stubborn to listen to my boss and be anon.
Of course, anyone with a blog can set whatever rules they like, I’m just saying there are consequences, intended and otherwise. It’s those otherwise that should worry us.
Comment by joel garry — November 6, 2009 @ 12:32 am UTC Nov 6,2009 |