Aspam is a challenge-response test for web forms to determine whether the user is human. Aspam offer the new idea of challenge-response test to block form submissions by spambots and automated scripts.

Project page
https://www.drupal.org/sandbox/mimedia/2686391
Git clone command
git clone --branch 7.x-1.x https://git.drupal.org/sandbox/mimedia/2686391.git aspam
Code Reviews
https://www.drupal.org/node/2686905
Requirements
CAPTCHA module
jQuery (jQuery Update module)
Raphaël 2.x JavaScript Vector Library by Dmitry Baranovskiy & Sencha Labs (included - don't install Raphaël module for Drupal)
CryptoJS (MD5) by Jeff Mott (included)
jsEncrypt by AllPlayers.com (included)
Installation
The installation process is the same as the usual Drupal module. Remember to install also CAPTCHA module.
If you want to increase security, you should enable encryption in module settings and provide private and public key.
Generate certificates for encryption support
Generate private key
Within your terminal (Unix based OS) type the following:
openssl genrsa -out rsa_1024_priv.pem 1024
Copy your private key from file: rsa_1024_priv.pem
Generate public key
Within your terminal (Unix based OS) type the following:
openssl rsa -pubout -in rsa_1024_priv.pem -out rsa_1024_pub.pem
Copy your private key from file: rsa_1024_pub.pem
Copyright and license
© Copyright Mirosław Sztorc
MIT License
Comments
Comment #2
msztorc commentedComment #3
msztorc commentedComment #4
PA robot commentedGit clone command for the sandbox is missing in the issue summary, please add it.
We are currently quite busy with all the project applications and we prefer projects with a review bonus. Please help reviewing and put yourself on the high priority list, then we will take a look at your project right away :-)
Also, you should get your friends, colleagues or other community members involved to review this application. Let them go through the review checklist and post a comment that sets this issue to "needs work" (they found some problems with the project) or "reviewed & tested by the community" (they found no major flaws).
I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.
Comment #5
msztorc commentedComment #6
klausiThis issue is not fixed? See the workflow: https://www.drupal.org/node/532400
Git clone command and project page still missing in the issue summary, please add that.
Comment #7
msztorc commentedComment #8
msztorc commentedComment #9
klausiPlease don't set the status to fixed, this needs review.
Comment #10
pankajsachdeva commentedComment #11
pankajsachdeva commentedAutomated Review
Found various issues in pareview.sh. Follow this link : http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpgitdrupalorgsandboxmimedia2686391git
Manual Review
The starred items (*) are fairly big issues and warrant going back to Needs Work. Items marked with a plus sign (+) are important and should be addressed before a stable project release. The rest of the comments in the code walkthrough are recommendations.
If added, please don't remove the security tag, we keep that for statistics and to show examples of security problems.
This review uses the Project Application Review Template.
Comment #12
pankajsachdeva commentedComment #13
PA robot commentedClosing due to lack of activity. If you are still working on this application, you should fix all known problems and then set the status to "Needs review". (See also the project application workflow).
I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.
Comment #14
msztorc commentedComment #15
msztorc commentedComment #16
msztorc commentedComment #17
asiby commentedThe installation instructions in README.txt are totally different from those found on the project page.
For instance, in README.txt we can read the following ...
Moreover, in README.txt, the word encryption does not appear even once while the project page explains how to increase security by enabling encryption.
I believe that the README.txt is the one that should/could potentially be more verbose than the project page. For example, you can move the encryption related explanations from the project page into the README.txt file and simply add a reference to it. More advanced usages are usually described in detail in README.txt if they are too verbose.
You can also keep it in both. It's a good selling point after all.
Also, in README.txt you are warning users about a conflict with the Toolbar module. This is very important, but it is not mentioned on the project page. And it should be mentioned in a more prominent fashion under a heading called "Known problems" according to the project page template. Some users may have a project that depends unconditionally on the Toolbar module and disabling it may not be a viable option. So they would want to easily spot that problem before downloading this module.
Comment #18
klausiReadme improvements are a good point but surely not application blockers. Anything else that you found or should this be RTBC instead?
Comment #19
asiby commentedIt is RTBCCorrection, I have just noticed few things that may not be acceptable. I am performing a manual review that I will post soon.
Comment #20
asiby commentedManual Review
The starred items (*) are fairly big issues and warrant going back to Needs Work. Items marked with a plus sign (+) are important and should be addressed before a stable project release. The rest of the comments in the code walkthrough are recommendations.
Comment #21
PA robot commentedClosing due to lack of activity. If you are still working on this application, you should fix all known problems and then set the status to "Needs review". (See also the project application workflow).
I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.