<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Simple Wordpress anti-spam for shared hosting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://clonepanel.com/simple-wordpress-anti-spam-for-shared-hosting/2006/12/21/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://clonepanel.com/simple-wordpress-anti-spam-for-shared-hosting/2006/12/21/</link>
	<description>Backup, monitor and sync shared hosting accounts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:26:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://clonepanel.com/simple-wordpress-anti-spam-for-shared-hosting/2006/12/21/comment-page-1/#comment-2178</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clonepanel.com/simple-wordpress-anti-spam-for-shared-hosting/2006/12/21/#comment-2178</guid>
		<description>Hmmm ... some great stuff here, thanks for the resources; hadn&#039;t realized that it was just so easy to install Akismet/Spam Karma etc!

Re the site getting kicked off the server for 1 spam attempt per second - that&#039;s extreme, and shows that the host didn&#039;t know what it was doing, at least to some extent.  I haven&#039;t tested this out, so I&#039;ll pull my head in if required, but I can&#039;t imagine that a simple spam block should consume much resource.  Perhaps they were doing an Akismet check (possibly resource-heavy) first and putting something else in front of that might have knocked off much of the attempts.  I do remember hearing somewhere else that changing the comment form name was enough to knock off spam and that&#039;s a neat trick; there are some similar things that can be done with MX records to kill off spam (&#039;nolisting&#039;).

There are some nice free firewall products available now which should block such attempts automatically (CSF); mind you, I&#039;m not sure if they do, but it could save a server quite some CPU time if it was able to proactively firewall such IPs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm &#8230; some great stuff here, thanks for the resources; hadn&#8217;t realized that it was just so easy to install Akismet/Spam Karma etc!</p>
<p>Re the site getting kicked off the server for 1 spam attempt per second &#8211; that&#8217;s extreme, and shows that the host didn&#8217;t know what it was doing, at least to some extent.  I haven&#8217;t tested this out, so I&#8217;ll pull my head in if required, but I can&#8217;t imagine that a simple spam block should consume much resource.  Perhaps they were doing an Akismet check (possibly resource-heavy) first and putting something else in front of that might have knocked off much of the attempts.  I do remember hearing somewhere else that changing the comment form name was enough to knock off spam and that&#8217;s a neat trick; there are some similar things that can be done with MX records to kill off spam (&#8216;nolisting&#8217;).</p>
<p>There are some nice free firewall products available now which should block such attempts automatically (CSF); mind you, I&#8217;m not sure if they do, but it could save a server quite some CPU time if it was able to proactively firewall such IPs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
