I have some major problems with the Mollom service, above all with its treatment (or rather non-treatment) of false positives. I recently also had a user complain that Mollom would not allow him to post a forum comment unless he removed the links to other sites (and I cannot see why it should do this).
So I had a look around the available modules and came across the Antispam module, which seems to do pretty much all the things that I want and works with three other antispam services.
My question is, why does not Mollom get together with the Antispam module and allow Antispam to add Mollom to its configurable services, rather than reinventing the wheel and recoding a whole lot of stuff like moderation queues and so on?
I'm not an expert so I've surely missed something, but I think this ability to handle false positives is critical. If there is one thing worse than having spam, it's having your audience treated as if it were spam without being able to react.

Comments

Dries’s picture

Category: support » feature

We're working on a mechanism to make it possible to retain spam messages (instead of discarding it). See #881534: Allow to unpublish spam posts instead of rejecting and #938846: Dedicated (comment) moderation queue.

I haven't tried the Antispam module yet but I will. The Mollom module predates the Antispam module; i.e. the Antispam module is newer.

Mollom does more than just spam protection, and will continue to do more. As such, it doesn't make sense to discard the Mollom module in favor of Antispam module. There is no reason we couldn't provide limited Mollom integration for the Antispam module though.