Send SpamBots to Purgatory!

[Malenfant]

Well, if it does that then just delete the 0-post users for now. Maybe if Selden could identify any 1-post spammers over time then he can perhaps delete their posts to get them down to zero, and then Chris can delete them?

[Dollan]

Actually the US spammers are not sooooo rare . I have also been making my own little statistics, recently.

Top Ten Spammer nations:
1) United States - 23.1%
2) China (inc. Hong Kong) - 21.9%
3) South Korea - 9.8%
4) France - 4.3%
5) Poland - 3.8%
6) Spain - 3.3%
7) Germany - 3.0%
Brazil - 2.9%
9) Japan - 2.0%
10) United Kingdom - 1.9% (source BBC News Story from April, 2006.)

The spammers from the US are just more clever or more "advanced" in a way.

Not really. Most spammers use similar methods and software, which I'm given to understand is relayed through a sort of spam-sharing network (according to our ITS Admin, anyway).

In a way my sympathies are not far from Malenfant's generic proposals. People who do not contribute anything to this forum over an extended period are profiting from the forum (obviously), but give back very little. In times without bots this is all fine, but if we could get rid of many bots by exploiting correllations with "non-writers", well...it's worth thinking about.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the requirment to post at least once every two weeks, perhaps once a month at the outside. This is hardly a new practice; it's been used on the majority of high traffic lists that I belong to for a couple of years now. I don't think that anything deepfully meaningful is neccessary (although certainly it wouldn't be discouraged!), but something along the lines of, "Hi guys, love the program, yadda yadda yadda" certainly wouldn't put anyone out. Or, it shouldn't. If that's too much of a bother, then really why are they signing up on a discussion list anyway? **chuckles**

...John...

[steffens]

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the requirment to post at least once every two weeks, perhaps once a month at the outside.

This might displease forum members that post seldomly but well considered.
On the other hand, this will not stop a spam bot that registers, posts some nonsense into every forum and never comes back.

steffens

[Adirondack]

Well, updating the forum software to 2.0.20 and using the image validation would help (to prevent new spam registrations).
AFAIK Selden can't do the update, only Chris as the admin is able to update the software. Probably Selden also can't delete any users.

Adirondack

[selden]

Adirondack is correct.

[Malenfant]

But Selden can and does delete *posts*... which is what I was suggesting: that Selden could cull the spammer posts down to zero, and then Chris could cull the member list of the 0-post people.

This might displease forum members that post seldomly but well considered.
On the other hand, this will not stop a spam bot that registers, posts some nonsense into every forum and never comes back.

Personally I think it's more important to worry about known quantities than unknown ones. I don't really care about what *might* happen, that if the few legit people who only post once might be 'displeased' about being kicked off - if it's that big a deal to them then they'll re-register and then start contributing more. I just know that if we don't take some action here, we know for certain that the situation will continue as it is, and that's not acceptable.

The idea that it's acceptable for the 'fire and forget' spammers (that just post once and then leave) to remain here is just plain wrong. Their highly dubious WWW links remain on the member list, and at the bottom of their posts. Presumably this is supposed to be a family-friendly board, if someone clicks one of those links and gets taken to a porn site or something then that's not exactly going to go down well. This is why I think it is neither optional nor negotiable for the existing memberlist to be purged.

BTW, if Chris has put any measures in place since this thread to stop the spammers from signing up, they're not working - I've noticed several more new spammers on the memberlist. We need some prompt, decisive, effective action here - if that's going to be inconvenient for Chris then I'm afraid I can't really sympathise since that's part of the responsibility of running a board, and he's the only Admin here. This problem has been largely ignored over time (I know that at least I have been going on at Chris and Selden about this for months, I'm sure others must have said something too) and as a result it's been building up to the point where now the legitimate membership is expecting something decisive to be done about it.

[t00fri]

...
BTW, if Chris has put any measures in place since this thread to stop the spammers from signing up, they're not working - I've noticed several more new spammers on the memberlist.
...

Wait...I communicated about this issue with Chris yesterday night.
The answer is this: There is no (new) barrier whatsoever for spammers to login. But they have to be activated by Chris in order to post.

Hence new spammers: yes, usual rate.
new posted spam : NO.

Bye Fridger

[Malenfant]

Wait...I communicated about this issue with Chris yesterday night.
The answer is this: There is no (new) barrier whatsoever for spammers to login. But they have to be activated by Chris in order to post.

Hence new spammers: yes, usual rate.
new posted spam : NO.

Bye Fridger

Well that stops the posts, but it doesn't stop the dodgy WWW links that could be clicked from showing up on the memberlist. That problem is still there.

It's a start, but the memberlist purge still needs to happen.

[steffens]

I don't really care about what *might* happen, that if the few legit people who only post once might be 'displeased' about being kicked off - if it's that big a deal to them then they'll re-register and then start contributing more.

Don't kick me just because I'm on vacation for 3 weeks or real life leaves me no time to spare for a while.
I've got no problem with deleting members with zero posts (especially those with www-links in their profiles), but "at least one post in two weeks" is overdone.

steffens

[t00fri]

...
Don't kick me just because I'm on vacation for 3 weeks or real life leaves me no time to spare for a while.
...
steffens

Of course, dedicated Celestians NEVER take vacations and ALWAYS post at a rate > 1/day

Bye Fridger

[ElChristou]

...
Don't kick me just because I'm on vacation for 3 weeks or real life leaves me no time to spare for a while.
...
steffens

Of course, dedicated Celestians NEVER take vacations and ALWAYS post at a rate > 1/day

Bye Fridger

Right... so all people with less than 1 message per day, d e l e t e d !!!



(joking of course )

[Fightspit]

I have just only more 1 post in 2 days ...

Total posts 206
[0.30% of total / 0.57 posts per day]
Find all posts by Fightspit

[t00fri]

I think I should be rather safe

Top ten posters:
==========

Code: Select all

 1       selden         NY, USA         04 Sep 2002       5420      
 2       t00fri         Hamburg         29 Mar 2002       3907    
 3       Chris          Seattle        28 Jan  2002       1753


Bye Fridger

[Fightspit]

I am 58th with 210 posts and just before cartrite with 209 posts.

[chris]

Well, updating the forum software to 2.0.20 and using the image validation would help (to prevent new spam registrations).
AFAIK Selden can't do the update, only Chris as the admin is able to update the software. Probably Selden also can't delete any users.

I'll upgrade phpBB, but image confirmation is already turned on for the Celestia forums, and the spambots seem to have no trouble defeating it. But maybe phpBB 2.0.20 has an improved version?

--Chris

[Malenfant]

I don't really care about what *might* happen, that if the few legit people who only post once might be 'displeased' about being kicked off - if it's that big a deal to them then they'll re-register and then start contributing more.

Don't kick me just because I'm on vacation for 3 weeks or real life leaves me no time to spare for a while.
I've got no problem with deleting members with zero posts (especially those with www-links in their profiles), but "at least one post in two weeks" is overdone.

steffens

You wouldn't be kicked. The idea is to delete people with zero posts, and you have 77. You're quite safe . It wouldn't matter how long it was since you last posted, if you had more than 1 post then you'd be safe.

And if new people want to stay on the memberlist then they should make an effort to post to the forum. As it is they don't need to join to just read the forums so there's no reason at all for them to actually register if that's all they want to do.

[Hunter Parasite]

...
Don't kick me just because I'm on vacation for 3 weeks or real life leaves me no time to spare for a while.
...
steffens

Of course, dedicated Celestians NEVER take vacations and ALWAYS post at a rate > 1/day

Bye Fridger

I take vacations sometimes! What are we, a sub-culture?

[Chuft-Captain]

I think I should be rather safe

Top ten posters:
==========

Code: Select all

 1       selden         NY, USA         04 Sep 2002       5420      
 2       t00fri         Hamburg         29 Mar 2002       3907    
 3       Chris          Seattle        28 Jan  2002       1753


Bye Fridger

Hi Fridger,

I notice that your top ten list only has three members.

....It seems that particle physicist's have a little trouble with numbers less than 500 billion electronvolts.

[Malenfant]

Would it be worth switching to different forum software?

http://www.eblah.com/ is another free forum back-end.

Or there is good paid-for forum software available like vBulletin ( http://www.vbulletin.com/ ) and UBBThreads ( http://www.ubbcentral.com/ ). I've been on forums run with these two and never seen spammers, and they're of course much better than the free software anyway (though they cost a few hundred dollars)...

[t00fri]

I think I should be rather safe

Top ten posters:
==========

Code: Select all

 1       selden         NY, USA         04 Sep 2002       5420      
 2       t00fri         Hamburg         29 Mar 2002       3907    
 3       Chris          Seattle        28 Jan  2002       1753


Bye Fridger

Hi Fridger,

I notice that your top ten list only has three members.

....It seems that particle physicist's have a little trouble with numbers less than 500 billion electronvolts.

I had no intention to repeat here the full top ten list that is readily available to everyone via the Forum's memberlist. I just wanted to place myself inbetween the two "nearest neighbors" on that top-ten list!

Bye Fridger