From: Paul Freeman (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 11:28:34 BST
> Well... personally I think that you should never edit a post to the extent
> of removing content (and the protocol has no way of removing pingbacks
> anyway). But the other cases seem reasonable.
> I would consider pingback spam be any of the following:
> a pingback from a page which doesn't include the appropriate link
> a pingback which has already been sent (a duplicate)
> a pingback from an automatically generated page (i.e. one with no
> further comments)
Whilst I can't see a way of filtering the last one, the first two
could be tackled on the server-side. I say "could" but would I really
be a good idea to parse the referencing url to check the link is
Duplicates could be checked for though.
>> Could the latter case be avoided by a 'reverse pingback' that would tell
>> 'hello, I removed the link to your blog, please remove me from the list
>> of blogs that pingback'd your entry' ?
> Why would anyone ever _remove_ a link? That seems very dubious to me. What
> if other people were linking to that post because of the link?
Unless you pingback the wrong url by mistake?
It is rare but it is possible (for me, at least) to link to the wrong
url on someone's weblog (usually the home page instead of the
permalink). Afterwards, you can modify your post to point to the
correct url, but you can't modify what you've pingbacked.
Message sent over the Blogite mailing list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 19 2002 - 18:05:00 BST