Spam...

[KGIII]

is this a good way to report the spam?

You can just hit the report button. I suppose it'll save your peers from reporting it if they see you've already done so, but that's not necessary.

Quite a bit happens when I 'spam clean' a user. Just reporting them is enough to bring them to our attention.

 

[f33dm3bits]

Quite a bit happens when I 'spam clean' a user. Just reporting them is enough to bring them to our attention.

Is it easier if I just spam report the user, instead of spam reporting each individual post they make. That saves me time, since most of the time those users posting spam, post multiple spam posts from the same account?

 

[Brickwizard]

yes see post #114 and KG's reply

 

[f33dm3bits]

yes see post #114 and KG's reply

You were talking about marking spam posts, then @KGIII replies that you only need to report one spam post. I'm talking about this.

The "Report" button under the user's profile, that way the user is reported and not just one or several spam posts they posted.

 

[Windmill]

The "Report" button under the user's profile

That is what I've been hitting and think that is all that's needed to alert the mods.

 

[Brickwizard]

The "Report" button under the user's profile,

I think they both have the same effect

 

[f33dm3bits]

I think they both have the same effect

I would think reporting a specific post only reports that post, if you report the user than everything that user does is reported. I'm going to go for the latter by reporting the user, everyone can do what they want it just seems more logical to report the user and not the post if they are posting multiple spam posts.

 

[CaffeineAddict]

Here is something to consider regarding banning IP's...

Due to IPv4 address space exhaustion ISP's implement CGNAT (Carrier Grade NAT), which is a NAT router controlled by ISP (independent of your home router used for regular NAT).
This allows ISP's to segment their network so that large group of costumers are behind same public IP.

Therefore when you ban someones public IP you're not really banning just that one spammer but a ton of other people who are behind same public IP, which is the IP of CGNAT router and not spammer's home router.

Therefore a spammer doesn't even have to restart their router because even if they obtain new IP (for their home router) they will continue with old IP which is CGNAT IP.

So neither can spammer help them self nor can web site administrators help them self, both are screwed regarding IP ban.

In cases of banning traffic based on IP addresses, a system might block the traffic of a spamming user by banning the user's IP address. If that user happens to be behind carrier-grade NAT, other users sharing the same public address with the spammer will be inadvertently blocked.[7] This can create problems for forum and wiki administrators attempting to address disruptive actions of a single malicious user sharing an IP address with legitimate users.

Carrier-grade NAT - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KGIII]

Is it easier if I just spam report the user, instead of spam reporting each individual post they make.

That's also fine. The result is the same from my perspective - and your perspective, I suppose.

When I 'spam clean', it removes all their posts automatically. It may also remove posts from others with the same IP address.

The odds of a false positive are pretty low and I consider it an acceptable risk. So far, I know of nobody who has been impacted by this wrongly. They're always able to contact an admin to address this.

 

[CaffeineAddict]

The odds of a false positive are pretty low and I consider it an acceptable risk. So far, I know of nobody who has been impacted by this wrongly. They're always able to contact an admin to address this.

A legitimate user willing to register to web site, but not able due to CGN IP being banned, is more likely to not contact site admin than to contact it, I believe so because I believe patient people are rare and usually easily upset in today's world.

They might also misinterpret and not understand why their IP is banned due to not knowing they're behind CGN or not knowing to be due to spammers.

 

[KGIII]

They might also misinterpret and not understand why their IP is banned due to not knowing they're behind CGN or not knowing to be due to spammers.

Again, I consider it an acceptable risk and an acceptable loss in the very rare instance where it theoretically could happen.

I'm okay with that. It sucks for them but is one of the prices we pay for being online and allowing posting and registration. With the migration to IPv6, the chances of a false positive are infinitesimal in nature. There are simply so many available addresses that ISPs needn't add the NAT overhead.

In the interim, it's so improbable that it's okay by me. There could be false positives. Again, I'm perfectly okay with that.

 

[Egzoset]

This thread is going to educate us about XenForo's anti-spam features, like it or not, but i always thought prevention was preferable to cure. Alternately, this is the Linux dot org collection of forums so if patience is that short what's a 1st-timer doing here to begin with? So i'll persist repeating if he's not willing to present himself 1st that's a reasonable hint and if nobody likes his post that's one more level reached. Besides, i find the idea of IP bans terrible if it's representing a risk to punish normal people just to accomodate real spammers, which is an horrible label to put on.

 

[Windmill]

Now we know roughly the time this particular spammer starts each day I would suggest a mod be on duty to ban him.
A constant ban just after he starts each day I think might make him give up with this site.

There will always be spammers but it's just an idea to make this idiot go elsewhere which I know he does.

 

[CaffeineAddict]

Now we know roughly the time this particular spammer starts each day I would suggest a mod be on duty to ban him.
A constant ban just after he starts each day I think might make him give up with this site.

There will always be spammers but it's just an idea to make this idiot go elsewhere which I know he does.

I think this thread should be deleted and any commentary about spammers forbidden because it might only bring joy to that spammer seeing all the crying here and only encouraging them to continue to prove their point (if that's their goal).

 

[Windmill]

Nipping in the bud every time is often a solution to soon stop the ongoing day after day of intense trash.
I don't know what the goal of the spammer is but forums of any kind seem to be his thing to disrupt.
It's obviously an abnormal kid doing it.

 

[wizardfromoz]

Just to clarify -

Maarten's @f33dm3bits suggestion at #144 is very good.

For example, (my) yesterday we had maybe 32 reports on just the two Members, and four of you good people where involved.

If you use Maarten's method, that could be as little as two (and in fact, Brian @Condobloke did it that way).

...as little as two...

It may be a couple more, as two or more people may report the same Spammer, as you folks cannot see that a person has been reported, however you could always mention that here, if you wish.

Under other circumstances we like to let a Reporting Member know the outcome and thank them, however that is too much in these cases, so when we clear out the Spammers, your reports automatically get finalised.

HTH

Cheers

Chris

 

[Egzoset]

To denounce is a negative mindset of someone on the hunt, to endorse is a positive/constructive one and no staff action gets required as a bonus.

 

[KGIII]

With any luck, they'll eventually realize that it's futile and stop wasting resources on us.

Then, we'll have a lull in frequency until we next get included in someone's automatic posting list.

I doubt very much that they're posting by hand. It's likely done with an automatic forum posting tool. Back in the day, they'd even do the registration automatically. I'm not sure if that has changed, though adding email authentication wouldn't be that difficult.

 

[Egzoset]

...adding email authentication wouldn't be that difficult...

I'm even surprized it ain't a basic requirement!

 

[Egzoset]

P.S.: Yet, i still prefer my proposal that newbies should present themselves and then be required to obtain active member endorsement simply for becoming visible, e.g. without any need of moderator interventions. After all this would remain compatible with the objective of providing assistance fast and the endorsement would presumably come from some member(s) already interested in a topic of said newbie anyway.