"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote in message
news:87lkfm8sds.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp...
| I think it would be better to do content.  URLs come to mind; without
| something clickable, most commercial spam would be hamstrung.  But
| few bug reports and patches need to contain URLs, except for
| specialized local ones pointing to related issues.

A bug is a disparity between promise and performance.  Promise is often
best demonstrated by a link to the relevant section of the docs.  Doc
patches should also contain a such a link.  So doc references should be
included with local (to tracker) links and not filtered on.

| For example, how about requiring user interaction to display any post
| containing an URL, until an admin approves it?

Why not simply embargo any post with an off-site link?  Tho there might
have been some, I can't remember a single example of such at SF.  Anybody
posting such could certainly understand "Because this post contains an
off-site link, it will be embargoed until reviewed to ensure that it is
legitimate."

|  Or you could provide a preview containing the first two non-empty lines
| not containing an URL.
|  This *would* be inconvenient for large attachments and other
| data where the reporter prefers to provide an URL rather than the
| literal data, but OTOH only people who indicate they really want to
| see spam would see it.  ;-)

I don't get this, but it sounds like more work than simple embargo.

I think html attachments should also be embargoed (I believe this is what I
saw a couple of months ago.)  And perhaps the account uploading an html
file.