ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Special User Sections > DC Website Help and Extras

attack of uggs

<< < (3/4) > >>

f0dder:
What about...

1) putting people on a watchlist if their first post is made "fairly long" after registering.
2) watchlist if a "very few posts" member replies to a necro-thread.

40hz:
I wish there were some vigilante groups that would go after spammers and companies that hire spammers.

By now they should have destroyed every company on the web selling their products using spammers, and made the use of spammers something no company would dare do for fear of the repercussions from such vigilantes.
-mouser (December 06, 2011, 02:13 PM)
--- End quote ---

It is rather 'amusing' that China and Russia - two countries who's governments seem to be so effective at restricting legitimate internet usage which runs counter to their political agendas - find themselves so powerless to deal with known spam syndicates operating within their borders.

Guess, in large part, spamming continues to be a problem because it's yet another manifestation of "spoiler" behaviors directed at Western society by nations quick to take offense at criticism, but slow to take on the initiatives or responsibilities needed to be full citizens in a modern data-linked world.

And Putin seriously wonders why membership in the EU and NATO remains so elusive? :-\

jgpaiva:
1) putting people on a watchlist if their first post is made "fairly long" after registering.
2) watchlist if a "very few posts" member replies to a necro-thread.
-f0dder (December 06, 2011, 02:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Actually, that exists already. We get emails for suspicious posts. But it implies that posts live until someone checks the email. That's why I mentioned suspicious posts could be subjected to moderator approval.

mouser:
That's why I mentioned suspicious posts could be subjected to moderator approval.
--- End quote ---

that really is the best solution, and would prevent all spam.  it's just not trivial to backport into smf1.x (i think it's easier in smf2).

Josh:
Upgrade to smf2? ;-)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version