Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JSonnabend]

Ok, I'm posting this here because it's the most active forum, and no one seems to pay much attention to the "comments about this BB" forum.

What's with all the Spam we're seeing lately?  Is the admin on this issue, or simply ignoring it?  We're not far from providing such a spam-laden experience that the forums will be more hassle than they're worth.

I have one suggestion.  If the admin can't handle the spam issue alone -- and I understand the time that might be required to implement a preventative measure -- then perhaps he can make several regulars here moderators who can simply delete blatantly offending posts?  I know I'd be happy to do it.

Any thoughts?

- Jeff

[Bill Richards]

Hear, hear!  In fact, I've begun to avoid "Last Posts" from names that seem questionable and look for known posters.  I can't waste my time.  That's bad for all.
I've thought about Jeff's suggestion, too.  I think it's an excellent idea.  What about giving posters with certain levels of membership that authority?  Or just the top X posters?
I, too, would be willing to act as a cleanup man!

[JimIvey]

I'd be happy to help as well.  The fact that much of the spam recycles user-ids and subject lines suggests a bot/script to me.  One of my favorite fixes for that is the graphic with text in it that the poster has to repeat in the posting form.  That should stop all the bots but won't stop manual spammers.

My other favorite fix is a DDOS (distributed denial of service) attack on the web pages linked in the spam messages.  I've never done that, don't know how to do it, and I'm pretty sure it's illegal (but I don't practice that type of law).  But it seems like a fair dose of "what goes around comes around."  And, the biggest drawback of that approach is that spammers can include links of innocent third-party web sites to mess everything up.

Oh well....

Regards.

[Forum Admin]

I agree that the spam is becoming intolerable.  I have been trying to censor their content in the hopes that they will give up.  It looks like it is not working sufficiently.  I will looking at other solutions including the one suggested this weekend.  Report back soon.

[CriterionD]

I also think Jeff's proposal is on the money, and past due.  While there are certainly other measures that could be taken to limit spam on this board, Jeff's proposal here is simple, easy to implement in the short term, and does not make the board any less acessible to would-be (legitimate) posters.

In addition to simply being able to delete individual posts, perhaps mods could be given the ability to easily delete all posts by specified user names, and to disable certain user names for temporary periods of time?  

[Isaac]

In addition to simply being able to delete individual posts, perhaps mods could be given the ability to easily delete all posts by specified user names, and to disable certain user names for temporary periods of time?  

I think this last suggestion goes a little too far.    I'm not personally interested in having permission to delete spam posts although I don't mind if others do it.    

I like Jim's idea the best.  (The first one and not the more offensive minded suggestion of questionable legality).   The graphics verification could be used for registration and for posting by non registered users.   If it proves necessary, the verification could be escalated to apply to all postings.

Of course I don't have to do the implementing...

[JSonnabend]

Well, the spam was gone for a couple of days, but is creeping back in.  Any thoughts from the Admin on allowing a few of us to help out on this?

- Jeff

[Isaac]

If anything it's slightly more annoying than before.  I retract my earlier statement about not wanting to delete spam.  I'd be willing to help out unless there are already too many volunteers.

It does help a bit to have a longer list of topics displayed on the front page since some of the spam is avoidable by looking at the titles.

[JSonnabend]

Well, the forums have been blitzed again (July 26-27), especially the non-patent forums.  Maybe now would be a good time to give some long-time users some spam-sweeping ability?

- Jeff

[Forum Admin]

Thanks for all of your concerns and input.

I have been hoping that with censoring their content and banning their ip addresses they would go somewhere else.  I could not do that if the spam is being deleted as fast as it is being put up.  As you can see, this solution does not appear to be working very well.

As well, I do not think that deleting the spam as fast as it is put up is the solution.  We would eventually find that we would be spending a significant amount of time deleting spam as the amount is simply going to increase.

I have been unable to identify a technical solution that has been published by others for use with this forum software.  I have opted for a custom solution which I think will reduce the amount of spam.  The particular solution I have identified will involve me modifying the forum software.  I will probably not have the time to do this for a couple of weeks.   I will also likely upgrade the forum software to a later version, which will likely be fairly time consuming.  I need to ensure that I have a sufficient block of time to do this.

In regard to giving permission to pemit long-time users permission to delete any spam that gets through, that will likely also be coming.  

I appoligise for the slowness in dealing with this issue but it has taken me a while to identify a solution that I think will work long-term.

Feel free to comment.

[Bill Richards]

I must admit to a lack of technical expertise in this area, but I applaud any efforts to stem the rising tide.  As stated earlier, it reduces the value of the Forum, which would be a terrible thing.  And, I'll repeat my offer to take part in a "spam squad" to help keep the volume down.

[Forum Admin]

Well, I made the change.  

In order to post a message containing a link to a resource on the Internet all 3 of the following criteria must be met:

1. must be logged on ... cannot be a guest;
2. must have posted at least 10 posts under that userid; and
3. must have been registered under that userid for at least 30 days.

The following will be the error message:

----

Due to excessive spam we have implemented the following restriction.

You may not include links to web resources within your message unless you are a registered user who has been registered for at least 30 days and have posted at least 10 messages.

Please hit the back button on your browser and remove all links to web resources.

Sorry for any incovenience.

-----

I am sure the test I have implemented will not be fool-proof but I will refine it as some spam gets through.  Let me know if you run into any bugs or difficulties.

[Bill Richards]

I like it; let's give it a try!

[Isaac]

I like it; let's give it a try!

I like it too.   Seems a lot more inobtrusive than the suggestions we came up with.  Let's see what happens.

[JSonnabend]

I like it too.   Seems a lot more inobtrusive than the suggestions we came up with.  Let's see what happens.

+1

+1 on the color scheme, too.

-----------------------