Spam

t.m.h.n.e.t

Still lots of it. Appears that turning off signatures and pms for new users didn't work.

What is next on the agenda?

Jeff Jones

We did identify a problem recently that stopped us blocking spammers. Not sure if a fix for it has gone live yet (I've been off sick).

t.m.h.n.e.t

I guess doing something is better than nothing

bompington

Nice irony there from spammer andrewmicky...

t.m.h.n.e.t

Still no fix?

Jeff Jones

The blocking problem was fixed a couple of weeks ago, the no PMs by new users should be fixed soon

t.m.h.n.e.t

Jeff Jones wrote:

The blocking problem was fixed a couple of weeks ago, the no PMs by new users should be fixed soon

But it's not really a fix is it? It's an irrelevant setting that was changed in desperate hope it would fix the spam.

nicklouse

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Jeff Jones wrote:

The blocking problem was fixed a couple of weeks ago, the no PMs by new users should be fixed soon

But it's not really a fix is it? It's an irrelevant setting that was changed in desperate hope it would fix the spam.

but when the spammers are sending spam by PM (were) it does what it needs to do.

stop spam PMs which people were compaining about.

dealing with spammers registering is another issue.

t.m.h.n.e.t

nicklouse wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Jeff Jones wrote:

The blocking problem was fixed a couple of weeks ago, the no PMs by new users should be fixed soon

But it's not really a fix is it? It's an irrelevant setting that was changed in desperate hope it would fix the spam.

but when the spammers are sending spam by PM (were) it does what it needs to do.

stop spam PMs which people were compaining about.

dealing with spammers registering is another issue.

Only via pm maybe. It still didn't fix it entirely nick. A "fix"(setting change) that fixes half a problem isn't a successful change.

Jeff Jones

The trick is distinguishing between a spammer and someone who wants to contribute. It's hard to do this pre-emptively without excluding people who want to post stuff relevant to the forum.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Jeff Jones wrote:

The trick is distinguishing between a spammer and someone who wants to contribute. It's hard to do this pre-emptively without excluding people who want to post stuff relevant to the forum.

Generally it isn't.

They either spam from post 1 in which case it's obvious

Or

They copy other posts in threads and add sneaky links to single letters/words

Or

They post in Broken English " Thanks was really helpful" or some crap to built a postcount then hit the spam.


But two of those rely on actually moderating,which your boys claim to not do(rely on reports)

Jeff Jones

Once they start posting and are reported, it's straightforward

Full moderation (reactive and proactive) makes us liable for everything posted in the forum. Which is why our legal dept and publishers have forbidden it. This policy applies to any Future-run forum.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Jeff Jones wrote:

Once they start posting and are reported, it's straightforward

Full moderation (reactive and proactive) makes us liable for everything posted in the forum. Which is why our legal dept and publishers have forbidden it. This policy applies to any Future-run forum.

lol what? Isn't responding to a report, reactively moderating?

Jeff Jones

Yep. Reactive is ok from a liability point of view because you respond to what you're alerted to - that's perfectly reasonable.

But for some reason, proactively moderating implies that you are reading every single post, therefore you can quite easily get sued if something is libellous/other but has escaped your attention. I don't agree with this but I'm not a lawyer.

So we're restricted to reactively moderating and a certain amount of spam that comes with it.

t.m.h.n.e.t

I have administered forums and websites for more of the past decade than I can remember. First I have heard anything of the sort.

Jeff Jones

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

I have administered forums and websites for more of the past decade than I can remember. First I have heard anything of the sort.

I've queried it several times in the past, answer's always the same, however impractical. I guess it's the perils of having a legal dept who are well schooled in intellectual property and libel law. But they also come in handy at times.

sketchley

Can you not proactively monitor while only promising to reactively monitor from a legal point of view?

vermin

Sketchley wrote:

Can you not proactively monitor while only promising to reactively monitor from a legal point of view?

It may or may not be relevant that, in English law at least, if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, regardless of the fact that it's holding a sign that reads "I am an elephant".

Jeff Jones

vermin wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Can you not proactively monitor while only promising to reactively monitor from a legal point of view?

It may or may not be relevant that, in English law at least, if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, regardless of the fact that it's holding a sign that reads "I am an elephant".

And there's always a trail...

On a practical level, I'd like to think that if one of the admin team accidentally stumbled upon some spam and removed it without it being formally reported then it wouldn't throw us into full and complete moderation mode.

kiwi43

Hi Jeff Jones, I am wondering if I could PM you regarding a proposed book I am wanting to write, I am an author named David Brookes and am wanting your permission to ask your members for advice etc...
sorry about the global post but the site wont allow me to PM you on this matter.
kind regards