Why are you replacing known spammers with these "banned" strings ? This forbids anti-spam filters & programs to do their jobs properly.
Usurp wrote:> Why are you replacing known spammers with these "banned" strings ? >Some spammers are persistent and just create another forum account and/or post from another IP address after one is banned. This prevents their spam URLs from ever being posted in the first place, regardless of where they're posting from.> This forbids anti-spam filters & programs to do their jobs properly.Set your spam filter to filter out "banned topic" and "banned web site" for the wine-user's list.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Usurp <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> Why are you replacing known spammers with these "banned" strings ?Because that is what we do. Some sites lead you to illegal to possess items (like counterfit drugs and clothes). Certain topics are not to be discussed here, period. Also, the spammers go away after a while. We have one that is beginning to become an irritant and that will be dealt with in another manner. We don't want to upset legitimate Wine users by bulk blocking IP addresses and such (that is really heavy handed) but this may be necessary. And no, this is not subject to discussion.> This forbids anti-spam filters & programs to do their jobs properly.Set your spam filters to delete "banned topic" and "banned site". I can even do this in Thunderbird, but I haven't because I'm one of those chasing these fools (and that is what they are, if you think I'm interested in a certain brand dress and I'm a hard core gamer??) James
jjmckenzie wrote:> these fools (and that is what they are, if you think I'm > interested in a certain brand dress and I'm a hard core gamer??) >They don't think that. The purpose of such posts is to manipulate search engine rankings, which is why it's worth it to them to keep reposting.
Usurp wrote:> > Many antispam programs try to learn from what they analyse with URL schemes and spam contents. Our current approach blocks that.Then use the forum. As James has pointed out, it is the existence of the mailing list that is standing in the way of upgrading the forum to software with much better spam controls.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:19 AM, dimesio <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> > Usurp wrote: >> >> Many antispam programs try to learn from what they analyse with URL schemes and spam contents. Our current > approach blocks that. > > Then use the forum. As James has pointed out, it is the existence of the mailing list that is standing in the way of > upgrading the forum to software with much better spam controls. >One item to note, the latest spammer is using the forum to spread his/her junk about a certain dress company. Blocking the mailing list would not have a major effect as the spam is not coming from there but being sent out. James
jjmckenzie wrote:> Blocking the mailing list > would not have a major effect as the spam is not coming from there but > being sent out. >I never said it would. We all know the spam is coming from the forum. The point is that if the mailing list were dropped, the forum software could be upgraded to a version that will enable us to force moderation on new users.
As a reader of the mail list, I have to ask: If we can flag these forum posts as banned, why not just NOT forward them to the mailing list?
david.hagood wrote:> As a reader of the mail list, I have to ask: > > If we can flag these forum posts as banned, why not just NOT forward them > to the mailing list?That's a wonderful idea. Contact the webmaster about it.
perryh wrote:> > Even better, if the software will support it, would be to divert > such posts into a moderation queue rather than posting them > immediately.Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Topic closed.