R devel - Feb 2016 - problem submitting R bug; bug plotting in tiling window manager

No problem.

Another suggestion would be to simply validate user input like most
websites, and reject invalid submissions immediately, rather than
blocking the user's account. I don't know what kind of spambots you
are up against, but unless they are very intelligent I doubt they'll
be able to understand a message like "You submitted a bug with no body
text, please enter something and try again." There may also be the
option of using Captchas.

Not sure how hard it is to get Bugzilla to do these things.

Thanks,

Frederick

P.S. (I now see that all errors on the bug tracker are displayed with
a red background)

On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 03:00:21AM -0500, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions.
> 
> Duncan Murdoch
> 
> On 05/02/2016 10:07 PM, frederik at ofb.net wrote:
> >Hi Duncan Murdoch,
> >
> >Thanks for your time. I apologize for not telling you that my email
> >address on the bug tracker is slightly different -
> >"frederik-rproject at ofb.net" vs "frederik at
ofb.net". I was going to
> >follow up with this information, but then I thought, he probably knows
> >how to find a tagged email address.
> >
> >I do hope that you are able to fix the bug tracker. In particular,
> >people should be made aware that their account is blocked before being
> >invited to submit a bug. The error they get should be less rude - no
> >need to make it red - and the email address in the error should be
> >filled in. You complained about wasting time having to look for my
> >email address - well, I wasted time looking for yours. The error
> >message could even hint at what triggered the ban. I don't think
that
> >you're going to get very far by trying to scare off actual spammers
> >with a big red accusation - I imagine they all have pretty thick skin.
> >
> >Reading the first line of my bug report was generous of you, but if
> >you read the rest, you'll see that, indeed, after checking with the
> >knowledgeable i3 guys, it appears to be an R bug. So I would like to
> >submit it. What appears at the top of my bug report is a copy of the
> >original bug I posted to i3, at the linked URL (are links OK or will I
> >get banned again?).
> >
> >The reason a bug appeared with the subject "til" is because I
noticed
> >that when typing into the subject field, some "related bugs"
come up.
> >However, this "suggestion" process appeared to be stalled
when I typed
> >"til" (for "tiling" or "tilable"). I
tried hitting "enter" and it
> >ended up opening a bug with that subject, which I never submitted,
> >because I clicked "back" and figured out that *four*
characters are
> >actually necesary to start getting suggestions. The whole point of
> >doing this was to see if another bug had been submitted with the same
> >topic, and thereby save you time! I'm not going to try to reproduce
> >this error, because you said it will get me banned again, but I think
> >somebody should try to fix the site so that people don't get banned
> >for any content which is not submitted. Especially people with
> >months-old accounts, like me.
> >
> >I definitely sympathize with the spam problem, and thank you for your
> >hard work. Best wishes,
> >
> >Frederick
> >
> >On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 08:19:40PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >>On 05/02/2016 7:26 PM, frederik at ofb.net wrote:
> >>>Dear Dirk Eddelbuettel and Duncan Murdoch,
> >>>
> >>>Thank you for your work on the wonderful R project!
> >>>
> >>>I recently attempted to submit a bug with your Bugzilla
interface:
> >>>
> >>>https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi
> >>>
> >>>I created an account, typed in all my information, first
checking
> >>>details with another project. Then I clicked submit, and was
taken to
> >>>a web page with a big red banner, it said
> >>>
> >>>     Spammer
> >>>     If you believe your account should be restored, please
send email to explaining why.
> >>>
> >>>What a hostile thing to say to your users! I tried resubmitting
my
> >>>bug, but removing any links, and I still get the message - so
it looks
> >>>like my account has really been blocked. Please do something to
warn
> >>>your users about this so they can avoid the upset.
> >>
> >>Your account isn't blocked now, but it wasn't easy to
unblock it: you used a
> >>different email address in the submission, not the same one you
used in this
> >>email.  At least one of the people who can deal with this kind of
thing
> >>would now demand an apology from you before ever reading your email
again.
> >>I won't do that, but I have to admit, I don't like the fact
that you wasted
> >>10 minutes of my time. I'm Bcc'ing a couple of people who
are working on
> >>putting together a better interface to the bug reporting system, so
they
> >>know to deal with this kind of issue as well as all the others.
> >>
> >>I'm not hostile, I just sound that way, because I've wasted
a lot of time
> >>this week on issues like this.
> >>
> >>Duncan Murdoch
> >>
> >>(Here's my previous email to you, for the benefit of those who
are Bcc'd:
> >>>You posted a bug report, but it had no content other than
"til".  That's
> >>>what many abusers of the system have done, so you were blocked.
> >>>
> >>>I have read the first line of your bug report, and it says
" I'm not
> >>>sure if this is a bug with i3 or R ".  If you're not
sure if it's a bug
> >>>or not, then please post to R-devel.  That's a moderated
list so if this
> >>>is your first post, it may take a while to appear.
> >>>
> >>>This probably seems unreasonable to you, but a lot of abuse is
sent to
> >>>the bug list, so we block it quite early.  I'll unblock you
now, but
> >>>please don't post there again unless your discussion on
R-devel
> >>>indicates this is a problem with R rather than i3.
> >>Duncan Murdoch
> >>>
> >>>Well, I don't know what it means to "email to
explaining why", so I
> >>>tried to subscribe to R-devel. However, it's been ten
minutes and no
> >>>confirmation email. So I tracked down your email addresses from
the R
> >>>website. I'm still cc'ing r-devel.
> >>>
> >>>I hope it is OK to send the bug by email. I really want to get
back to
> >>>what I was doing, but I don't want to lose the work I put
into writing
> >>>this bug report, so I'm attaching it to this message.
> >>>
> >>>Thank you,
> >>>
> >>>Frederick Eaton
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Unfortunately, the spammers in question appear to be human (of sorts). 

We're not sure what they're up to, but a common pattern is to post
random text, or something copied from a generic bug report (like "able to
add 6 item"), later followed by a comment containing a link or a file
attachment.

Presumably, it is some sort of click-bait scheme, but it could also be a covert
channel for contrabande files. At any rate, it is very hard to distinguish by
mechanical means. So it is done by eye, with some risk of Type-I error. Thus,
the Bugzilla maintainers are pretty vigilant to stamp out spammers, sometimes
edging on being ham-fisted (er, -footed?).

-pd

> On 07 Feb 2016, at 00:25 , frederik at ofb.net wrote:
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Another suggestion would be to simply validate user input like most
> websites, and reject invalid submissions immediately, rather than
> blocking the user's account. I don't know what kind of spambots you
> are up against, but unless they are very intelligent I doubt they'll
> be able to understand a message like "You submitted a bug with no body
> text, please enter something and try again." There may also be the
> option of using Captchas.
> 
> Not sure how hard it is to get Bugzilla to do these things.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Frederick
> 
> P.S. (I now see that all errors on the bug tracker are displayed with
> a red background)
> 
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 03:00:21AM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>> 
>> Duncan Murdoch
>> 
>> On 05/02/2016 10:07 PM, frederik at ofb.net wrote:
>>> Hi Duncan Murdoch,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your time. I apologize for not telling you that my email
>>> address on the bug tracker is slightly different -
>>> "frederik-rproject at ofb.net" vs "frederik at
ofb.net". I was going to
>>> follow up with this information, but then I thought, he probably
knows
>>> how to find a tagged email address.
>>> 
>>> I do hope that you are able to fix the bug tracker. In particular,
>>> people should be made aware that their account is blocked before
being
>>> invited to submit a bug. The error they get should be less rude -
no
>>> need to make it red - and the email address in the error should be
>>> filled in. You complained about wasting time having to look for my
>>> email address - well, I wasted time looking for yours. The error
>>> message could even hint at what triggered the ban. I don't
think that
>>> you're going to get very far by trying to scare off actual
spammers
>>> with a big red accusation - I imagine they all have pretty thick
skin.
>>> 
>>> Reading the first line of my bug report was generous of you, but if
>>> you read the rest, you'll see that, indeed, after checking with
the
>>> knowledgeable i3 guys, it appears to be an R bug. So I would like
to
>>> submit it. What appears at the top of my bug report is a copy of
the
>>> original bug I posted to i3, at the linked URL (are links OK or
will I
>>> get banned again?).
>>> 
>>> The reason a bug appeared with the subject "til" is
because I noticed
>>> that when typing into the subject field, some "related
bugs" come up.
>>> However, this "suggestion" process appeared to be stalled
when I typed
>>> "til" (for "tiling" or "tilable"). I
tried hitting "enter" and it
>>> ended up opening a bug with that subject, which I never submitted,
>>> because I clicked "back" and figured out that *four*
characters are
>>> actually necesary to start getting suggestions. The whole point of
>>> doing this was to see if another bug had been submitted with the
same
>>> topic, and thereby save you time! I'm not going to try to
reproduce
>>> this error, because you said it will get me banned again, but I
think
>>> somebody should try to fix the site so that people don't get
banned
>>> for any content which is not submitted. Especially people with
>>> months-old accounts, like me.
>>> 
>>> I definitely sympathize with the spam problem, and thank you for
your
>>> hard work. Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Frederick
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 08:19:40PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>>> On 05/02/2016 7:26 PM, frederik at ofb.net wrote:
>>>>> Dear Dirk Eddelbuettel and Duncan Murdoch,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your work on the wonderful R project!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I recently attempted to submit a bug with your Bugzilla
interface:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi
>>>>> 
>>>>> I created an account, typed in all my information, first
checking
>>>>> details with another project. Then I clicked submit, and
was taken to
>>>>> a web page with a big red banner, it said
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Spammer
>>>>>   If you believe your account should be restored, please
send email to explaining why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What a hostile thing to say to your users! I tried
resubmitting my
>>>>> bug, but removing any links, and I still get the message -
so it looks
>>>>> like my account has really been blocked. Please do
something to warn
>>>>> your users about this so they can avoid the upset.
>>>> 
>>>> Your account isn't blocked now, but it wasn't easy to
unblock it: you used a
>>>> different email address in the submission, not the same one you
used in this
>>>> email.  At least one of the people who can deal with this kind
of thing
>>>> would now demand an apology from you before ever reading your
email again.
>>>> I won't do that, but I have to admit, I don't like the
fact that you wasted
>>>> 10 minutes of my time. I'm Bcc'ing a couple of people
who are working on
>>>> putting together a better interface to the bug reporting
system, so they
>>>> know to deal with this kind of issue as well as all the others.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not hostile, I just sound that way, because I've
wasted a lot of time
>>>> this week on issues like this.
>>>> 
>>>> Duncan Murdoch
>>>> 
>>>> (Here's my previous email to you, for the benefit of those
who are Bcc'd:
>>>>> You posted a bug report, but it had no content other than
"til".  That's
>>>>> what many abusers of the system have done, so you were
blocked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have read the first line of your bug report, and it says
" I'm not
>>>>> sure if this is a bug with i3 or R ".  If you're
not sure if it's a bug
>>>>> or not, then please post to R-devel.  That's a
moderated list so if this
>>>>> is your first post, it may take a while to appear.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This probably seems unreasonable to you, but a lot of abuse
is sent to
>>>>> the bug list, so we block it quite early.  I'll unblock
you now, but
>>>>> please don't post there again unless your discussion on
R-devel
>>>>> indicates this is a problem with R rather than i3.
>>>> Duncan Murdoch
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I don't know what it means to "email to
explaining why", so I
>>>>> tried to subscribe to R-devel. However, it's been ten
minutes and no
>>>>> confirmation email. So I tracked down your email addresses
from the R
>>>>> website. I'm still cc'ing r-devel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope it is OK to send the bug by email. I really want to
get back to
>>>>> what I was doing, but I don't want to lose the work I
put into writing
>>>>> this bug report, so I'm attaching it to this message.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Frederick Eaton
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
-- 
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk  Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com

Ah, thank you for that explanation. I somehow didn't catch that my
Bugzilla account had been disabled by a human.

"Common pattern is to post ... something copied from a generic bug
report" - that sounds very annoying.

Frederick

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:54:11AM +0100, peter dalgaard
wrote:
> Unfortunately, the spammers in question appear to be human (of sorts). 
> 
> We're not sure what they're up to, but a common pattern is to post
random text, or something copied from a generic bug report (like "able to
add 6 item"), later followed by a comment containing a link or a file
attachment.
> 
> Presumably, it is some sort of click-bait scheme, but it could also be a
covert channel for contrabande files. At any rate, it is very hard to
distinguish by mechanical means. So it is done by eye, with some risk of Type-I
error. Thus, the Bugzilla maintainers are pretty vigilant to stamp out spammers,
sometimes edging on being ham-fisted (er, -footed?).
> 
> -pd
> 
> 
> > On 07 Feb 2016, at 00:25 , frederik at ofb.net wrote:
> > 
> > No problem.
> > 
> > Another suggestion would be to simply validate user input like most
> > websites, and reject invalid submissions immediately, rather than
> > blocking the user's account. I don't know what kind of
spambots you
> > are up against, but unless they are very intelligent I doubt
they'll
> > be able to understand a message like "You submitted a bug with no
body
> > text, please enter something and try again." There may also be
the
> > option of using Captchas.
> > 
> > Not sure how hard it is to get Bugzilla to do these things.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Frederick
> > 
> > P.S. (I now see that all errors on the bug tracker are displayed with
> > a red background)
> > 
> > On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 03:00:21AM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >> Thanks for the suggestions.
> >> 
> >> Duncan Murdoch
> >> 
> >> On 05/02/2016 10:07 PM, frederik at ofb.net wrote:
> >>> Hi Duncan Murdoch,
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks for your time. I apologize for not telling you that my
email
> >>> address on the bug tracker is slightly different -
> >>> "frederik-rproject at ofb.net" vs "frederik at
ofb.net". I was going to
> >>> follow up with this information, but then I thought, he
probably knows
> >>> how to find a tagged email address.
> >>> 
> >>> I do hope that you are able to fix the bug tracker. In
particular,
> >>> people should be made aware that their account is blocked
before being
> >>> invited to submit a bug. The error they get should be less
rude - no
> >>> need to make it red - and the email address in the error
should be
> >>> filled in. You complained about wasting time having to look
for my
> >>> email address - well, I wasted time looking for yours. The
error
> >>> message could even hint at what triggered the ban. I don't
think that
> >>> you're going to get very far by trying to scare off actual
spammers
> >>> with a big red accusation - I imagine they all have pretty
thick skin.
> >>> 
> >>> Reading the first line of my bug report was generous of you,
but if
> >>> you read the rest, you'll see that, indeed, after checking
with the
> >>> knowledgeable i3 guys, it appears to be an R bug. So I would
like to
> >>> submit it. What appears at the top of my bug report is a copy
of the
> >>> original bug I posted to i3, at the linked URL (are links OK
or will I
> >>> get banned again?).
> >>> 
> >>> The reason a bug appeared with the subject "til" is
because I noticed
> >>> that when typing into the subject field, some "related
bugs" come up.
> >>> However, this "suggestion" process appeared to be
stalled when I typed
> >>> "til" (for "tiling" or
"tilable"). I tried hitting "enter" and it
> >>> ended up opening a bug with that subject, which I never
submitted,
> >>> because I clicked "back" and figured out that *four*
characters are
> >>> actually necesary to start getting suggestions. The whole
point of
> >>> doing this was to see if another bug had been submitted with
the same
> >>> topic, and thereby save you time! I'm not going to try to
reproduce
> >>> this error, because you said it will get me banned again, but
I think
> >>> somebody should try to fix the site so that people don't
get banned
> >>> for any content which is not submitted. Especially people with
> >>> months-old accounts, like me.
> >>> 
> >>> I definitely sympathize with the spam problem, and thank you
for your
> >>> hard work. Best wishes,
> >>> 
> >>> Frederick
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 08:19:40PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> >>>> On 05/02/2016 7:26 PM, frederik at ofb.net wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Dirk Eddelbuettel and Duncan Murdoch,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Thank you for your work on the wonderful R project!
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I recently attempted to submit a bug with your
Bugzilla interface:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I created an account, typed in all my information,
first checking
> >>>>> details with another project. Then I clicked submit,
and was taken to
> >>>>> a web page with a big red banner, it said
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>   Spammer
> >>>>>   If you believe your account should be restored,
please send email to explaining why.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> What a hostile thing to say to your users! I tried
resubmitting my
> >>>>> bug, but removing any links, and I still get the
message - so it looks
> >>>>> like my account has really been blocked. Please do
something to warn
> >>>>> your users about this so they can avoid the upset.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Your account isn't blocked now, but it wasn't easy
to unblock it: you used a
> >>>> different email address in the submission, not the same
one you used in this
> >>>> email.  At least one of the people who can deal with this
kind of thing
> >>>> would now demand an apology from you before ever reading
your email again.
> >>>> I won't do that, but I have to admit, I don't like
the fact that you wasted
> >>>> 10 minutes of my time. I'm Bcc'ing a couple of
people who are working on
> >>>> putting together a better interface to the bug reporting
system, so they
> >>>> know to deal with this kind of issue as well as all the
others.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'm not hostile, I just sound that way, because
I've wasted a lot of time
> >>>> this week on issues like this.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Duncan Murdoch
> >>>> 
> >>>> (Here's my previous email to you, for the benefit of
those who are Bcc'd:
> >>>>> You posted a bug report, but it had no content other
than "til".  That's
> >>>>> what many abusers of the system have done, so you were
blocked.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I have read the first line of your bug report, and it
says " I'm not
> >>>>> sure if this is a bug with i3 or R ".  If
you're not sure if it's a bug
> >>>>> or not, then please post to R-devel.  That's a
moderated list so if this
> >>>>> is your first post, it may take a while to appear.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This probably seems unreasonable to you, but a lot of
abuse is sent to
> >>>>> the bug list, so we block it quite early.  I'll
unblock you now, but
> >>>>> please don't post there again unless your
discussion on R-devel
> >>>>> indicates this is a problem with R rather than i3.
> >>>> Duncan Murdoch
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Well, I don't know what it means to "email to
explaining why", so I
> >>>>> tried to subscribe to R-devel. However, it's been
ten minutes and no
> >>>>> confirmation email. So I tracked down your email
addresses from the R
> >>>>> website. I'm still cc'ing r-devel.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I hope it is OK to send the bug by email. I really
want to get back to
> >>>>> what I was doing, but I don't want to lose the
work I put into writing
> >>>>> this bug report, so I'm attaching it to this
message.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Frederick Eaton
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> 
> -- 
> Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
> Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
> Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
> Phone: (+45)38153501
> Office: A 4.23
> Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk  Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>