Block IP

Sep 13, 2007 17:41


Title
Block IP

Short, concise description of the idea
A simple way to block spam or internet attackers who use the Anonymous feature, without having to block all Anonymous posting.

Full description of the ideaInstead of having a user block all Anonymous posts or having the user delete each spam or trolling post, create an option to block the ( Read more... )

killfile, anonymous users, ip addresses, banned users, § no status, comment creation

Leave a comment

Comments 58

licon October 4 2007, 20:59:27 UTC
A problem is that AOL, amongst others I believe, allocates blocks of IP addresses to all its users. So you could potentially be blocking everyone from a certain ISP from commenting.

And anyone who wants to post a comment can still do it - there are so many easy ways to bypass IP blocks it's not even funny.

Reply

beckyzoole October 4 2007, 21:01:14 UTC
Of course, the person on AOL who is potentially blocked could still log in to make a comment.

Reply

licon October 4 2007, 21:05:44 UTC
If they can log in then it's not an issue to start with.

Reply

losttoy October 4 2007, 22:40:21 UTC
If they can log in, then that user is identifying themselves as a user and a journal owner can block individual LJ logins using the Admin Console.

Reply


livredor October 4 2007, 21:18:53 UTC
It's not a good idea to do anything based on IP addresses, because an IP address does not equal an individual. The same IP address may be shared by hundreds or thousands of users, so people would end up banning someone they didn't intend and it would be hard to sort out. Besides, any annoying person can get round an IP ban by using a different computer or other methods. Also, more and more people these days have dynamic IP addresses, so blocking a particular IP address would only work for a few hours at best.

I can see why this feature seems desirable, but in practice it doesn't work and I think that's why LJ have never tried to implement anything like this.

Reply

losttoy October 4 2007, 22:30:52 UTC
You may be right. I was trying to come up with ways to make it limit some while still being in the hands of the individual journal writer. I realize that blocking comments (not the viewing) from an IP might block more than the intended poster, but not blocking people who have registered livejournal accounts. I am unaware of ways that people could bypass a IP blocks, but now that it is mentioned, I am sure it could be done.

I just think there should be a better way than having to block all anonymous comments or having the hassle to screen each and every post.

Reply

licon October 4 2007, 23:15:01 UTC
OpenID kinda fills that gap.

Reply


androshd October 5 2007, 01:29:37 UTC
-1. What about users who use dial-up? Those IPs aren't static, so you could be blocking the creepy commenter one day and your best friend the next...

Reply

losttoy October 8 2007, 02:20:33 UTC
Who uses dial-up anymore? :P

Reply

androshd October 8 2007, 06:12:08 UTC
Plenty of international users, for one.

Reply


jazzmusician October 5 2007, 04:09:58 UTC
Yes, this is a much needed feature!

Reply

losttoy October 8 2007, 02:21:34 UTC
Thanks for the support ... although it looks like there are too many nay-sayers on this one.

Reply


neitherday October 5 2007, 04:35:33 UTC
I used to be in the anti-IP blocking camp, believing it useless. However, dealing with vandals on Wikipedia has shown me that it can be an effective tool. Sure it has the potential to block more than the intended target, but disabling anonymous posting all together guarantees that other potential commenters will be blocked. If the journal owner can live with it, they should be able to do it. In that vein, I'd even support the ability to block IP ranges.

Reply

losttoy October 5 2007, 13:46:30 UTC
Just my point (except you seemed to have said it better). Thank you.

Reply

azurelunatic October 8 2007, 01:09:37 UTC
Given the drawbacks, do you (specifically and generally) think the benefits would justify the coding time?

Reply

neitherday October 8 2007, 02:05:28 UTC
Honestly, I don't know. It seems to me that the coding should be straight forward, in which case I would say yes. But if there is something I'm unaware of that would make it a complicated to implement (which may well be the case), then I would say no.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up