|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Feb 2014
|
Theyre back!
|
|
|
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
|
They are indeed. D:
So I'm having another deleting spree until Raze bans them again...
J'aime le fromage.
|
|
|
|
Support
|
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
|
Banned the most recent one (and one recent account with all their posts deleted), and another shortly after RtM's post...
|
|
|
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
|
I'm glad you're so quick off the mark! This particular spammer does seem to be weirdly determined...
J'aime le fromage.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
|
I think I deleted several hundreds of spam posts the last hour or so. It seems like the flow has stopped (for now).
|
|
|
|
Support
|
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
|
You didn't leave me very many... oh well; time to sort the user list and delete the new accounts with a bunch of deleted posts (sorry, I only just missed the start of the one with 116 posts in the last 45 minutes).
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Funny to watch spam pop up and then disappear again. ^^
|
|
|
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
|
Though it's a bit arse that they sometimes appear as fast as we delete them. I guess it's an automated spambot, either that or someone who's drunk way too much coffee.
J'aime le fromage.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Oh it's definitely a spambot.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Well, at least I now know who to call if I need black magic help in India.
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Feb 2014
|
You guys are doing a great job....but really, you should HAVE TO do this so often. Not going to be fixed until you require a bit more to become a member. Having a security measure for each post would be too much now that I think of it. So just in creating a profile.
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
|
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: Dec 2012
|
What about a security pattern recognition (something like letters and numbers) test whenever you want to create a new thread?
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: May 2013
|
I wouldn't go further than on-account creation security and number of threads within a short-ish time frame. We want to stop the spambots not annoy the legitimate users.
Unless otherwise specified, just an opinion or simple curiosity.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
|
What about a security pattern recognition (something like letters and numbers) test whenever you want to create a new thread? I've seen that on other forums, and it is really annoying. Even if they limit it to the first 5-10 posts you make, it's still really annoying. Especially when the CAPTCHAs are hard (or sometimes impossible) to read. I agree with EinTroll, no need to annoy legitimate posters. There are better methods of spambot control.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
|
A captcha to create an account is ok, but having to constantly do that every time you want to create a thread is not a good idea.
Anyway, it might help to just block the IP addresses of public proxys, spambots like to use these to spread their crap. But I dunno, let Larian decide what is best and most effective.
Last edited by dlux; 02/08/14 05:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
|
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
|
A captcha to create an account is ok, but having to constantly do that every time you want to create a thread is not a good idea.
Anyway, it might help to just block the IP addresses of public proxys, spambots like to use these to spread their crap. But I dunno, let Larian decide what is best and most effective. Yeah, I'd certainly go along with that. The Larian chaps are back soon, I understand, so hopefully they'll give the matter some consideration.
J'aime le fromage.
|
|
|
|
Support
|
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
|
I'm hoping for posting frequency limits for new users (until a reasonable number of time and posts have past), as well as URLs not being resolved into links (so people would still be able to copy and paste to see a screenshot, etc, but spammers would get no benefit trying to game Google's ranking algorithm).
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Nov 2003
|
Anyway, it might help to just block the IP addresses of public proxys... Which would also block legitimate posters who want/need to use such proxies ( Tor being a very good example as one of very few methods effective against state surveillance). Giving moderators the power to ban accounts (which they should have by default in UBB) would seem sensible.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
|
I can kind of understand why Raze might hand out the "delete threads" privilege a little more easily than the "ban accounts" privilege. Or perhaps it's not something he can transfer. In any case, would be nice.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Anyway, it might help to just block the IP addresses of public proxys... Which would also block legitimate posters who want/need to use such proxies ( Tor being a very good example as one of very few methods effective against state surveillance). Giving moderators the power to ban accounts (which they should have by default in UBB) would seem sensible. I can understand that, but why would someone need TOR to visit Larian.com? Not like anything illegal or even remotely similar is going on here. ^^
|
|
|
Moderated by ForkTong, gbnf, Issh, Kurnster, Larian_QA, LarSeb, Lar_q, Lynn, Monodon, Raze, Stephen_Larian
|
|
|