Can we remove the .exe censor? It makes providing help on tech&computers a lot harder, and is generally pointless. I know it's there to break .exe links, but everyone knows not to click on one, or to accept the download that would pop up,

Support. I would actually support some further lessening of the censor but I don't think it'll happen.

Support. I would actually support some further lessening of the censor but I don't think it'll happen.

 

I very much support that as well.

Support

 

Makes it easier to look through HiJackThis logs as well.

I'm not totally sure how I feel about this. Honestly it doesn't really make things much easier for tech stuff/HJT logs since you can easily assume that anything ending in .[censored] or whatever it's censored to is [Caution: Executable File]. And unfortunately, not everyone knows to avoid downloading [Caution: Executable File]'s. Plenty of people fall for them just like plenty of people fall for scam e-mails, fake RuneScape login sites, etc.

The problem with uncensoring [Caution: Executable File] is that while the majority have good intentions there is an unfortunate minority who do not. It would be easy enough for you not to link directly to the download and instead tell them what to search for to download a program, if it was uncensored it would be easier for users to get linked to malicious programs (like tripsis said about the RuneScape scam e-mails). As much as I wish we didn't have to censor it, unfortunately not everyone can be trusted and computer safety for all users is a priority.

I have to agree that the [Caution: Executable File] censor can bet a bit annoying at times but it does help protect users. Is it possible to instead only censor links containing the [Caution: Executable File] extension and not plain text as a compromise?

Have you ever tried to read a HijackThis log with the censor in place? It makes it a lot harder. If someone wants to post a malicious download, they could just post a redirect page anyways.

 

@ tripsis, it shows up as this - ohnoesavirus[Caution: Executable File]

Well in the past 2 months we've only had 3 uses of .exe by adbots whereas there are 14 uses by legitimate users. Also the 3 adbots were very obvious and I'm sure almost every user would notice that the link isn't safe just from a glance at the content of the post.

 

Also I'm pretty sure it's not possible to censor only urls with .exe as you'd need to censor something like .exe[/url] but most bad links don't even use the url tags to begin with.

 

Anyways just wanted to throw some numbers/thoughts to consider out there.

Have you ever tried to read a HijackThis log with the censor in place? It makes it a lot harder. If someone wants to post a malicious download, they could just post a redirect page anyways.

 

@ tripsis, it shows up as this - ohnoesavirus[Caution: Executable File]

Yes, I actually don't think it is that difficult :P Sure it might be annoying to see all the censored bits, but it doesn't make it more difficult since you know what they are.

Have you ever tried to read a HijackThis log with the censor in place? It makes it a lot harder. If someone wants to post a malicious download, they could just post a redirect page anyways.

 

@ tripsis, it shows up as this - ohnoesavirus[Caution: Executable File]

Yes, I actually don't think it is that difficult :P Sure it might be annoying to see all the censored bits, but it doesn't make it more difficult since you know what they are.

This.

 

I'm against removed [Caution: Executable File] from the censors due to the frequent people who join to attempt to take advantage of users with such files.

I have an idea that may have merit- What if there was something that censored to [Caution: Executable File]? Obviously it would have to be some sort of half-secret, and I don't know exactly how that would work, but it's a start.

That's an interesting idea, but it would be hard to let all the users know about it.

 

I like tech's idea as well but I don't think you could do that with the current censor, you'd have to modify it.

Would changing it to something like [.exe] be possible? It would still have the effect of breaking links, but would be far less obstructive.

Would changing it to something like [.exe] be possible? It would still have the effect of breaking links, but would be far less obstructive.

 

Or take away the [] and censor it to ".(epsilon)xe". Are greek letters supported?

Would changing it to something like [.exe] be possible? It would still have the effect of breaking links, but would be far less obstructive.

 

Or take away the [] and censor it to ".(epsilon)xe". Are greek letters supported?

.εxe like that?

Would changing it to something like [.exe] be possible? It would still have the effect of breaking links, but would be far less obstructive.

 

Or take away the [] and censor it to ".(epsilon)xe". Are greek letters supported?

.εxe like that?

 

Yes, how did you do that?

Would changing it to something like [.exe] be possible? It would still have the effect of breaking links, but would be far less obstructive.

 

Or take away the [] and censor it to ".(epsilon)xe". Are greek letters supported?

.εxe like that?

 

Yes, how did you do that?

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greeklanguage/a/ASCIIGreek.htm gives ε as being alt + 0949 in windows, but typing it in the browser doesn't work (for me, in chrome), so I copied/pasted it from another program.

 

 

Would changing it to something like [.exe] be possible? It would still have the effect of breaking links, but would be far less obstructive.

 

Or take away the [] and censor it to ".(epsilon)xe". Are greek letters supported?

.εxe like that?

 

Yes, how did you do that?

 

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greeklanguage/a/ASCIIGreek.htm gives ε as being alt + 0949 in windows, but typing it in the browser doesn't work (for me, in chrome), so I copied/pasted it from another program.

 

Ah, thank you.

Everyone, why not just simplify things, and change...

 

[Caution: Executable File]

...to...

 

[block: Exec. File]

...in order to cut down the length of the censor text and make it far less annoying? I would personally support a change like that myself. :thumbsup:

 

~D. V. "Why not shrink the censor length?" Devnull

Have you ever tried to read a HijackThis log with the censor in place? It makes it a lot harder.

 

http://pastebin.com/

 

Everyone, why not just simplify things, and change...

 

Because changing what its censored to is still not solving the root problem but to solve the root problem would endanger the community. There exists suitable workarounds that, at most, add 30 extra seconds to your posting time. The world will not collapse and fall in that time. The risks outweigh the benefits and I strongly disagree with removing .exe from the censor.

Have you ever tried to read a HijackThis log with the censor in place? It makes it a lot harder. If someone wants to post a malicious download, they could just post a redirect page anyways.

 

@ tripsis, it shows up as this - ohnoesavirus[Caution: Executable File]

 

 

As an admin, I'd guess I did review 50-75 HJT files WITH the censor (all new mods/crew are required to do one). It was annoying as piss, but something I didn't think about changing in the censor because of the risks to users of inferior intelligence than the majority of us who don't play with strange [Caution: Executable File]s's

 

I always found find and replace worked well and only slowed me down marginally.

 

I'd much rather see Prick unfiltered - However I doubt that will happen *giggles*

I'd much rather see Prick unfiltered - However I doubt that will happen *giggles*

That, and Dick, because "Former Vice President [bleep] Cheney" just looks funny.

I'm pretty sure you can just evade in those cases. On the other hand, not everyone knows to do that, or how.

Everyone, why not just simplify things, and change...

Because changing what its censored to is still not solving the root problem but to solve the root problem would endanger the community. There exists suitable workarounds that, at most, add 30 extra seconds to your posting time. The world will not collapse and fall in that time. The risks outweigh the benefits and I strongly disagree with removing .exe from the censor.

I also disagree with removing the censor on them, Kimberly, but that's not the point here! What I'm getting at is that my idea mitigates some of the annoyance caused by the root problem. Heck, if you view my idea versus the current censor in a proportional font, you'll find that my idea shortens the display length considerably. However, it still makes the point it was meant to. Hey, can you say "Less annoying because it's shorter.", instead of going around proverbially 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'? :geek:

 

Honestly, I personally don't find the root problem to be that much of a problem at all. Heck, I've put up with it for just about as long as I've known of the existence (a few years now) of HiJackThis, and I really don't find it that much of a freaking problem at all! (Well, at least I didn't until this thread stuck its' forbidden -- in my opinion -- nose out of the ground at me.) I'm just trying to help find some kind of middle ground that the Admins can quickly set in place for a while until a better solution can be designed. Again, which would you rather have, less annoying or very annoying? Personally, I prefer the idea of less annoying. :idea:

 

 

 

I'd much rather see Prick unfiltered - However I doubt that will happen *giggles*

That, and Dick, because "Former Vice President [bleep] Cheney" just looks funny.

I'm pretty sure you can just evade in those cases. On the other hand, not everyone knows to do that, or how.

I see what they did there, dsavi. Good ol' decreased browser fonts FTW. :thumbsup:

 

Not something I'll actually do, though. Shame on them for doing it. :shame:

 

 

 

~D. V. "Bloody censor issues..." Devnull