On 2 September 2014 11:01, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello! >> >> >> >>> 311 bugs have been created on GCC Bugzilla since yesterday. Only 2 are >> >>> valid bugs. The remaining 309 ones are all spam and have been moved into >> >>> the 'spam' component and marked as INVALID. >> >> >> >> We can also avoid archiving bugs with "spam" component to gcc-bugs@ ML. >> > >> > That would indeed remove one incentive of the spammers (bump up >> > google search results by adding referers). >> >> You'd still get the initial bug creation message, so it wouldn't change >> much. > > Well, we could remove (or replace with some different mail from a template > telling the PR was a spam) even the initial mails for the spam/ component > PRs in the archive afterwards. It is just the txt/ and html files plus > perhaps adjusting the subject, or perhaps just adding one <meta ... > > line to those msg*.html corresponding to spam/ bugs? > <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"> > or so? Are they ever regenerated or are they just created once and > unmodified ever since?
Would it be possible to give new accounts some probationary status such that the first bug report has to be confirmed as genuine before information is copied into archives etc. as spammers would want?
