Thanks to our moderators

[studiot]

Having just seen the contaminated 'new posts' list, I would just like to extend a warm thanks to our moderators for using their valuable time to clear all the chaff.

 

[Phi for All]

"Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!" - Monty Python

[ACG52]

Whatever was done to eliminate the commercial spam is not working.

[John Cuthber]

"Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!" - Monty Python

Baked beans are off.

[swansont]

Whatever was done to eliminate the commercial spam is not working.

 

Actually what was fixed is. There's one class of spammer that the fix has basically eliminated. The filter doesn't catch all of it, but we had a dozen spammers an hour we were killing for a few days. It was not unusual to log in and ban several who were online but hadn't been able to finish their spamming.

[SamBridge]

I'm pretty sure there's easy automated ways to take care of much of the commercial spam we see. For instance, simply make a rule in the php code that one must post 5 times before being able to post a link to anything.

[EdEarl]

It should be relatively easy for the new user script to play an audio challenge, a word or short phrase, that must be keyed into a text box before registering a user. Deaf users would have to communicate with a moderator, who could ask a few questions to verify the prospective new user is a person.

 

If there are many deaf users, it is possible to present a short video of a person signing a challenge word.

Edited June 9, 2013 by EdEarl

[studiot]

I've no idea whether these long lists of rubbish new posts I see each time I log on and click on "view New Posts" are generated by human fingers or autobots.

 

My point was that I can simply ignore them, but someone has to remove them and moderators must be wasting significant amounts of time doing this.

 

Sambridge certainly a telltale sign is a list of 5 or more posts by the same "new member" often with the same title.

[pwagen]

There seems to still be a problem though.

 

[EdEarl]

Sambridge certainly a telltale sign is a list of 5 or more posts by the same "new member" often with the same title.

Another telltale sign is that these "new members" do not reply to new topics they post. And, when they do reply to another thread, it is always off topic and an ad--at least all the ones I have checked out.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Yes, not quite sure what's going on at the moment. Our admin staff are looking into why we're still getting even the garden variety spammers that used to be caught by the filter sign up and be able to post.

 

Until then, we're flagging them as we see them; if we miss some, please report them.

[studiot]

Our admin staff are looking into why we're still getting even the garden variety spammers

 

I wonder if that is to do with the way that different computers respond to the website due to their configuration.

 

This PC is an old Dell running XP.

 

Some of the SF functions do not work correctly or even at all on the max version of IE that I can use.

 

For instance when posting if I choose the reply button I cannot type into the reply box or use the icons.

 

But if I choose 'more reply options' everything is hunky dory.

 

More and more websites are being redesiged without reference to their target audience these days and I am seeing this sort of thing increasingly.

 

Perhaps your spammer has found a loophole in this aspect.

[ewmon]

I wonder about the feasibility of diverting first-and-originating posts with links to a cache that requires moderators to approve in order to actually start a thread. I think a high correlation exists between original-posts-with-links to posts-that-are-spam. Correct? This would not interrupt ongoing threads, but only originating threads.

Edited June 9, 2013 by ewmon

[studiot]

..........with links to a cache that requires moderators to approve in order to actually start a thread............

 

 

Yes at leat one other forum I know does that (Vintage Radio).

 

But as underlined it significantly adds to moderator burden, which was the point of this thread.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Quite a lot of them are actually bots posting into other threads. Some threads are magnets for it. I know of a forum that disallows links in posts in other threads or in their own OP's until you reach a certain post count, but I honestly found this to be an annoyance coming in as a new member. I don't know if we could employ a system that puts a post containing links from new members into the moderator review panel with our current forum software, though it's not a bad idea and something to look into when next we (read: Cap'n and dave) update the site.

[Phi for All]

I think we just have some sleepers, bot accounts that got in while the filters were off but didn't post any spam right away. The filters are back in place, but they're already members. The filter's probably only protecting us from spammers joining.

[michel123456]

I wonder if that is to do with the way that different computers respond to the website due to their configuration.

 

This PC is an old Dell running XP.

 

Some of the SF functions do not work correctly or even at all on the max version of IE that I can use.

 

For instance when posting if I choose the reply button I cannot type into the reply box or use the icons.

 

But if I choose 'more reply options' everything is hunky dory.

 

More and more websites are being redesiged without reference to their target audience these days and I am seeing this sort of thing increasingly.

 

Perhaps your spammer has found a loophole in this aspect.

I have the same issues since the last SFN upgrade. I stopped using IE and use Firefox instead.

 

But I doubt that has anything to do with spammers.

 

IMHO a good way should be to use CAPTCHA for new membership.

[StringJunky]

..IMHO a good way should be to use CAPTCHA for new membership.

 

It's worth a try and little inconvenience i reckon.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We do use a CAPTCHA -- we use reCAPTCHA. I strongly suspect that spammers pay people a few cents to bust each CAPTCHA for them. They haven't been very effective for years.

 

New users are also required to have a valid email address, are not permitted to have signatures, can't post status updates or connect their accounts to Facebook and Twitter, and have a rate limit on sending PMs. All of these measures were reactions to techniques used by spammers. One popular spam technique was to register an account, set its signature or "About Me" to spam, and then never post, thus never bringing the account to our attention.

 

We've put a lot of time into nuking spam and trying to prevent it. To give you a sense of scale, there are currently 9,103 members in the database marked as spammers, and I've probably deleted the accounts of just as many.

I wonder if that is to do with the way that different computers respond to the website due to their configuration.

 

This PC is an old Dell running XP.

 

Some of the SF functions do not work correctly or even at all on the max version of IE that I can use.

 

For instance when posting if I choose the reply button I cannot type into the reply box or use the icons.

 

But if I choose 'more reply options' everything is hunky dory.

 

More and more websites are being redesiged without reference to their target audience these days and I am seeing this sort of thing increasingly.

 

Perhaps your spammer has found a loophole in this aspect.

What version of IE are you using? You can use up to IE 8 on Windows XP, which should be compatible with IPB.

 

IE 6 accounts for 0.1% of our audience, and is no longer compatible with IPB. IE 7 is 0.7% of our audience. IE in total is only 15%, as it's swamped by Chrome, Safari and Firefox.

[studiot]

What version of IE are you using?

 

Internet Explorer 8 as up to date as possible.

 

IE is the one browser you cannot do without and I am used to the corporate environment.

 

go well

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Internet Explorer 8 as up to date as possible.

 

IE is the one browser you cannot do without and I am used to the corporate environment.

 

go well

That's interesting, because your browser claims that it is IE 7. You may want to check if you have it in compatibility mode, where it renders pages like it's IE 7.

[pwagen]

Right now, there are quite a number of new threads by bots. All of them seem to have signed up at the same time, 10:26 PM (my local time). However, they're posting some time apart. Would it be possible to detect bots from them mass-joining at certain times? For example, I'm not sure how often you get (arbitrary number) 20 new members within one minute. Are they using the same IP?

 

As for the previous discussion in the thread (as well as this post), I'm not sure how much you're able to do with IPB. Don't you get it as a package, which you're not supposed to make changes to?

[studiot]

Definitely IE8 see attachment.

 

Thank you for the nod and wink about compatibility settings I have now set SF and will try that.

 

Please delete the attachments when viewed if you want the space, they have served their purpose, unless they help others somewhere along the line.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh, I was wondering if you already had it in compatibility mode; I don't know if it will help. Worth a shot though.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I think we just have some sleepers, bot accounts that got in while the filters were off but didn't post any spam right away. The filters are back in place, but they're already members. The filter's probably only protecting us from spammers joining.

 

 

Not so. All the 143040 ones I flagged yesterday had just registered.