On Friday 24 December 2004 11:42, Steve Simms wrote:
> Alexey Borzov wrote:
> > No, there's no step missing, I expected someone to put a "canned" answer
> > in this place.
>
> Ok, that makes sense.
>
> > I don't think it's worth the effort to write an explanation for every
> > spam piece added via our comment interface. The better approach would be
> > to add a prominent warning to comment form and send a "you violated our
> > comment guidelines"-type email on comment rejection.
>
> Well, we do have the delete/reject distinction, where delete just
> removes the message without sending an E-Mail, and reject provides an
> explanation.
>
> Is it worth making that message customizable, given that?
>
Probably not. I think we need to change the "friendly message" to state the
reasons why someones comment would be rejected and leave it at that. If
someone is really compelled to give a reason you can direct email the person
in question. This would mean we "reject" comments for folks who are
misguided, but "delete" messages that are totally inappropriate.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
