Server Validation: Restrict Content - any update on this yet?

We still can't enter a value for "Replace" when applying the Restrict Content server validation, meaning that setting up any validation is pointless because it just defaults to the same value as the entry.

We raised this issue months ago. Any update on when it might be resolved because the extension basically doesn't work in its current format?

We're trying to prevent submission of URL links in a textarea field so if there is a better way to do that than Restrict Content then I'm all ears. Thank you.

NJ

the work around i have found is to use a pipe separated list in the don't allow entry to enter the value|type|replace value, for example:

http://|begins with|###
.com|ends with|#$%^
www.|includes|$%^&

and make sure for each one, you select the corresponding type in the select list.

I will mention to Ray that this is still outstanding.

I appreciate the workaround Jason, but this was promised months ago (along with many other things).

Unlike others I'm holding my patience with WebAssist, mainly because I have so much invested in WebAssist in terms of website development, but telling people things are coming and then not delivering is just poor service.

Hoping 2015 sees huge improvements in communications with customers and time management.
Thank you.
NJ

I Have forwarded your comments.

<ahem>... :(

I need to prevent people from submitting "12345" in a telephone field and I'd like to do it with the extension that I've paid for in good faith, that has been promised to be fixed several times but still hasn't been...

Will we eventually just be refunded for extensions that don't work?

This extension actually works as designed. Replacement is not really an option for server side variables. This was taken from a client side javascript behavior that replaced the value in the text field before submission. Since the server code acts after submission, the values can't actually be replaced.

It is a bit confusing that it is displayed in the server UI, but that is because they both access the same libraries.

I don't think you really want to do a replacement anyway do you? If you wanted to prevent someone from entering 12345 in a telephone field, then what would you want to replace it with? If it finds the value it will fail validation, but replacing isn't really relevant for your use case it doesn't seem.

Why not use regular expression, or phone number validation? Or use the restrict content validation without replace values? It should still fail the validation.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Please describe the exact functionality you are trying to achieve and I can try to help you achieve it.

The validation you are trying to use was originally called swearing validation. It's purpose was to replace bad words with random characters for forums. I don't think it really makes sense for phone numbers?

It would work as designed if it allowed you to select something to replace the word/phrase you're attempting to block but it doesn't. As you say, that's only confusing because it's appearing in the UI for the server validations.

If it fails validation but doesn't replace it with anything then that would do wouldn't it? The validation would fail and we'd deliver an error message.

Phone number validation doesn't have an option for UK phone formats plus how can you rely on a user entering their phone number in the exact format for whatever country they're in?

What I'm basically trying to prevent is bots submitting the following:

Name field:
ABCDEFG

Telephone Field:
12345

E-mail:
username@email.com

Text Box:
Anything that would allow a bot to include a link to somewhere

We're receiving spam form submissions that have links in ALL of these fields. We've used Alphanumeric validation to prevent it in the name and telephone number fields, and we appreciate that there isn't much you can do about a bot submitting user1@aol.com (or whatever) as an e-mail address.

However, in a text box field I really want to prevent links being added and the only way I can see of doing that is preventing submission of words / phrases such as http:// or URL: and such like. I'd take your advice on how best to achieve that.

Oh, and one definite issue with this extension...it doesn't allow for line breaks in a text box and subsequently fails.

Appreciate the help, thank you.
NJ

It does have an option to allow UK format in phone validation.

Replacing the values in the validation wouldn't help your problem... if the replacement took place you would still get the spam submission just with a replaced value.

I'd use CAPTCHA in your form to prevent robot spam. Either the simple question or image form would solve this problem entirely. That is the reason it was created.

If you want to block specific values, then the validation should work even without replacements to block the submission. I don't feel like the replacement is necessary or even wanted when it comes to simply blocking specific values from being accepted.

I think you could add: \r and \n to the alphanumeric validation "allow other" to allow line breaks.

How do you ensure that a user enters the number in UK format though? Here's my number, for example...
01671 404924

Here is a number for somewhere in Edinburgh though...
0131 231 4653

Does the validation tool accommodate this, because the numbers are very different. Also, some people do this in the UK:
(01671) 404924

and this...
0131-231-4653

or they might even try these if they keep being told it's wrong...
+44 01671 404924
0044167404924

There's a lot of variation and continually being told you're doing it wrong, when all of the above are technically correct, is frustrating for a user.

I understand why it was created but I can't stand CAPTCHA purely because it looks so amateurish and, as a user, it just frustrates me. Also, does it cope with the above variations?

We have to manually add \r and \n in the "allow other" alphanumeric validation - that isn't particularly obvious to someone who isn't familiar with validations so maybe (doesn't hold breath) a check box could be added to say "allow line breaks"? Will try to remember that but I've done a couple of forms and come across this problem and then realised it was the same issue.

Appreciate the help, thank you.
NJ

I just tested and all of those phone numbers pass server phone number validation if "allow international" is checked.