# Limiti di immagine per nuovi utenti ignorati per gli URL oneboxed
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176
**Category:** Feature
**Created:** [2 Novembre 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176 "2018-11-02T22:38:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Drew\_Warwick](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Drew_Warwick)
#### Post date: [2 Novembre 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176/1 "2018-11-02T22:38:17Z")
The two image limit settings on Discourse:
- newuser max images
- min trust to post images
are not respected by URLs being automatically converted to embeds. If I post the URL to an image like so:
[https://gfycat.com/SociableCleanAfricanfisheagle](https://gfycat.com/SociableCleanAfricanfisheagle)
I can bypass the above two settings, so long as I have permission to post URLs. Expected behavior is that links aren’t automatically embedded if my TL is below min trust to post images, and after n=newuser max images, links stop being automatically embedded as images (display blue warning so users don’t think something is broken)
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [2 Novembre 2018, 10:46pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176/2 "2018-11-02T22:46:19Z")
This is not a bug; you’re referring to two different things.
Should we have a limit on _onebox embeds_ for new users?
---
### Author:  [@Drew\_Warwick](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Drew_Warwick)
#### Post date: [2 Novembre 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176/3 "2018-11-02T22:48:25Z")
Yes, with our use case being we don’t want users to be able to embed/onebox explicit images in their posts. It’s less bad if they link it, as then users have to go off-site to see the inappropriate content, and it’s not displayed on an official domain owned by us.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [2 Novembre 2018, 11:07pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176/4 "2018-11-02T23:07:42Z")
Why not blacklist the problem remote domain(s) in relevant oneboxing site settings?
---
### Author:  [@Drew\_Warwick](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Drew_Warwick)
#### Post date: [2 Novembre 2018, 11:28pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176/5 "2018-11-02T23:28:08Z")
It’s unlikely that it will be a specific domain. Probable case is that user uploads something inappropriate to Imgur or some other hosting site that we want to allow for TL1+ users, and then links that in their post.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [3 Novembre 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176/6 "2018-11-03T01:18:29Z")
Hmm, what do you think @sam is it worth restricting _all_ oneboxes for TL0 users? Is that even possible?
---
### Author:  [@zogstrip](https://meta.discourse.org/u/zogstrip)
#### Post date: [12 Novembre 2018, 11:53am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-user-image-limits-ignored-for-oneboxed-urls/101176/7 "2018-11-12T11:53:39Z")
> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> is it worth restricting _all_ oneboxes for TL0 users?
Not sure about restricting **all** oneboxes, but having them behind a site setting could be useful.
I don’t think we’ve ever experienced this on meta, but I don’t want to have to rebake TL0 posts with a link just to trigger the oneboxing…
> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> Is that even possible?
Yes.