Spammer

SpaceNut · 2011-12-08 20:10:47

But for those that are real an email to josh or others with a short statement for joining would be all that is needed to correct any unfairness in any blanket banning methods that the board uses.

JoshNH4H · 2011-12-08 20:27:50

But a significant proportion of users would probably not go to that effort and we could lose out on users that would really spur some good discussions.

SpaceNut · 2011-12-08 20:34:57

But when you look at the past member counts of post there are to many that do get an account that never post or post less than a dozen times. This is true not only here but at MarsDrive, Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum and so many more web forums. I remember making a short post to the owner of Simply solar in the Yahoo tech groups for just this reason to be allowed to join.

JoshNH4H · 2011-12-09 00:45:39

I agree that very many of our users would not contribute all that much even if they were to join, but Gmail is a very popular email and so there's a nonzero chance that someone, if they have a gmail, will try to register and be turned away, as we lose them and any thoughts that they may have. It's possible that they just wouldn't bother to email.

Last edited by JoshNH4H (2011-12-09 00:46:15)

Josh Cryer · 2011-12-09 18:18:05

We banned gmail on the old forums, StopForumSpam can only go so far. They sign up new emails by the hundreds. Gmail really needs to work on that somehow, because it's completely broken. I can show you the list of the spammers I deleted, it's dozens upon dozens of unique emails. I did notice that they did lack vowels and I'll look into whether or not I can do a check to see if peoples' emails have vowels in them but that can still hit unique users.

As it stands now you're asked to send an email to the admin and he'll sign you up, or you can use a non-gmail address. So it's not like they have to go find the email address or anything, it's in the message denying them access.

JoshNH4H · 2011-12-09 21:23:27

Fair enough. I was just wondering if it were possible to go about it some way other than a blanket block of gmail addresses, but if it isn't or it would have a significantly reduced efficacy (or a significant amount of programming) then of course what has to be done has to be done.

SpaceNut · 2012-05-29 03:56:19

Well this one is still here posting .... Cheap with the wholesale garbage in the Rebirth of New Mars; Establishment of New Mars Editorial Board topic

Mark Friedenbach · 2012-06-01 10:25:08

Well, that's ironic.

SpaceNut · 2012-06-02 10:46:17

Sorry to see this happening all over again by the lack of admins policing the board as well Mark Friedenbach.
I along with about a dozen others would take care of such issues but I do not have that capability after the boards rebirth...

GW Johnson · 2012-06-02 14:01:46

We do need to eliminate the porn spammer.

I notice he's not gmail. Not everybody on gmail is a spammer. I'm certainly not.

GW

SpaceNut · 2012-06-02 14:22:36

I have seen this same act by spammers cause years of data and thoughts to become meaningless 1's 0's on many a space related site...How ever it does take an army of vigalent forum participants to key this stuff policed.....
Hopefully once this one is gone we still will be intact and able to see what topics were the recent ones posted to with real comments to be had and not trash....

Terraformer · 2012-06-02 15:10:33

I've facebook messaged JoshNH4H... Hopefully he'll remember that he's a moderator here...

Josh Cryer · 2012-06-02 17:09:24

Sorry about that.

louis · 2012-06-02 18:07:49

SpaceNut wrote:

But for those that are real an email to josh or others with a short statement for joining would be all that is needed to correct any unfairness in any blanket banning methods that the board uses.

Well done! Good to see the site cleansed. Incidentally there must be more cost effective ways for them to promote their porno sites.

Terraformer · 2012-06-03 02:36:51

Spambots are pretty cheap. I don't think they're looking for customers, it's more link-spamming to improve their search results?

SpaceNut · 2012-06-03 08:11:52

JoshNH4H wrote:

But a significant proportion of users would probably not go to that effort and we could lose out on users that would really spur some good discussions.

True but a spamBot would not reply. That said the question just needs to be answered to turn on the account so long as the response is one that pertains to what we feel space is all about....

JoshNH4H · 2012-07-23 11:27:06

Spammer

JoshNH4H · 2012-07-29 22:17:14

http://www.newmars.com/forums/profile.php?id=3497

SpaceNut · 2012-08-01 20:56:31

The latest in drug crazed spammers frederic37b
http://www.newmars.com/forums/profile.php?id=3499

RGClark · 2012-08-02 03:30:27

SpaceNut wrote:

The latest in drug crazed spammers frederic37b
http://www.newmars.com/forums/profile.php?id=3499

lol!

Bob Clark

RGClark · 2012-08-02 19:22:43

Maybe we need a captcha to register on the forum.

Bob Clark

Rxke · 2012-08-03 00:50:59

Ugh...

When one checks 'new posts' it all but looks like we've become a squat for spammers

Terraformer · 2012-08-03 03:37:05

Maybe we need to bring back moderators...

RGClark · 2012-08-03 11:47:32

Terraformer wrote:

Maybe we need to bring back moderators...

Yes, he wouldn't have to monitor the forum continually, but just check to see if the first few posts from a new registrant are legitimate before allowing them.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2012-08-03 13:49:57)

Josh Cryer · 2012-08-03 19:50:03

Sorry about that guys. Moderators aren't as powerful on this forum software as they were on phpBB. So even if we added more you'd be manually deleting their posts. It'd be pointless.

edit: all spammers since the switchover now purged. Man that took longer than I expected (about 50 minutes).

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2011-12-08 20:10:47

Re: Spammer

#427 2011-12-08 20:27:50

Re: Spammer

#428 2011-12-08 20:34:57

Re: Spammer

#429 2011-12-09 00:45:39

Re: Spammer

#430 2011-12-09 18:18:05

Re: Spammer

#431 2011-12-09 21:23:27

Re: Spammer

#432 2012-05-29 03:56:19

Re: Spammer

#433 2012-06-01 10:25:08

Re: Spammer

#434 2012-06-02 10:46:17

Re: Spammer

#435 2012-06-02 14:01:46

Re: Spammer

#436 2012-06-02 14:22:36

Re: Spammer

#437 2012-06-02 15:10:33

Re: Spammer

#438 2012-06-02 17:09:24

Re: Spammer

#439 2012-06-02 18:07:49

Re: Spammer

#440 2012-06-03 02:36:51

Re: Spammer

#441 2012-06-03 08:11:52

Re: Spammer

#442 2012-07-23 11:27:06

Re: Spammer

#443 2012-07-29 22:17:14

Re: Spammer

#444 2012-08-01 20:56:31

Re: Spammer

#445 2012-08-02 03:30:27

Re: Spammer

#446 2012-08-02 19:22:43

Re: Spammer

#447 2012-08-03 00:50:59

Re: Spammer

#448 2012-08-03 03:37:05

Re: Spammer

#449 2012-08-03 11:47:32

Re: Spammer

#450 2012-08-03 19:50:03

Re: Spammer

Board footer