LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > LQ Suggestions & Feedback
User Name
Password
LQ Suggestions & Feedback Do you have a suggestion for this site or an idea that will make the site better? This forum is for you.
PLEASE READ THIS FORUM - Information and status updates will also be posted here.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-27-2011, 04:52 AM   #16
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,592

Rep: Reputation: 535Reputation: 535Reputation: 535Reputation: 535Reputation: 535Reputation: 535

It's amazing the things you learn when someone points them out to you
 
Old 03-27-2011, 05:35 AM   #17
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 27,001
Blog Entries: 54

Rep: Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756Reputation: 2756
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
March 15 was not the date he was banned. It was the date that he last logged in and edited his signature back into the posts they were edited out of.
Oops, misread that. He was banned on March 25th with posting behaviour reports going back as far as January.
 
Old 03-27-2011, 08:57 AM   #18
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,572

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul View Post
Don't do that, we need those links That's the reason I think the root said that if he forces the strict rules, the legitimate members would be effected. I am not very sure if that is the reason, I am just guessing.
As the rules could be made a lot stricter without forcing me and TobiSD to give up our sigs, I would say that your guess is wrong. For example, they could be changed so that sigs could no longer contain commercial advertisements.

tabzz would be a better example of a (legitimate) user who could be affected by even slightly stricter sig rules.

Of course, if being unable to advertise off-topic businesses hurts a user in any meaningful way, then that user was never legitimate in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
Unfortunately, your conclusion that "disallowing ads" is .sigs would cut down on this behavior has proven untrue and would have a negative impact on legitimate members while having nearly no impact on spammers.
I now understand that a stricter sig policy was actually tried as an anti-spam measure in the past:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...e-html-550222/

Obviously, it didn't work out. What happened?

Last edited by dugan; 03-27-2011 at 09:15 AM.
 
Old 03-27-2011, 09:07 AM   #19
TheIndependentAquarius
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,619
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
As the rules could be made a lot stricter without forcing me and TobiSD to give up our sigs, ....... For example, they could be changed to disallow commercial advertisements.
Yeah we can have a new rule saying Commercial advertisements are not permitted, but you'll have to persuade the root on that and then when I write blogs, I'll be putting all those links on the top of my every post People grudging on my behavior will be reported then
 
Old 03-27-2011, 09:20 AM   #20
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Interesting case, and detailed analysis, good work on that. I would not have caught this because I would assume that it is a typical gibberish post that some users tend to post. I mean, I know of many users that will post something like that, and they're not considered spammers and expect an answer. Something with no punctuation marks, no grammar, no sense ...

It does bring up many issues as a matter of fact, so I'm glad you posted this.

For non-commercial advertising, I'd say that posting a link to your Linux-related website in your sig is acceptable ... or I guess than can change.
 
Old 03-27-2011, 11:36 AM   #21
jlinkels
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Bonaire
Distribution: Debian Lenny/Squeeze/Wheezy/Sid
Posts: 4,053

Rep: Reputation: 484Reputation: 484Reputation: 484Reputation: 484Reputation: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
For non-commercial advertising, I'd say that posting a link to your Linux-related website in your sig is acceptable ... or I guess than can change.
I think a URL in your website is acceptable and should even be encouraged, as long as it is non-commercial. This limits a little bit current web-links wich are well-intended but nevertheless commercial. This example was a very good example of something which did not disturb me (I found it useful information despite of the terrible non-informative all positive page), but was nevertheless commercial. It did not annoy me, but if it would be beyond the limit of acceptable policy because it is commercial I would not bother either. That would also exclude a link to RedHat Enterprise, but like it or not that is commercial as well.

Most URLs of serious members are quite useful and I often visit them to see what they think is useful or interesting. We should not forbid that. In Dutch there is a saying: throwing away the child with the bath water. Cannot be translated, but it means throw away something useful because you want to get rid of something in relation with it.

jlinkels
 
Old 03-27-2011, 11:56 AM   #22
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 10,319

Rep: Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612Reputation: 2612
The process outlined in post #7 is actually very close to what we currently do, it's just that we're not as strict about the content contained in .sigs as we are with the content of posts (which is not to say we "allow spam" in them, we don't). Keep in mind that members who are in the "New Member" group can't even have a .sig, which means they have to pass various spam filters and other measures before adding one.

--jeremy
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-27-2011, 01:38 PM   #23
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,572

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlinkels View Post
In Dutch there is a saying: throwing away the child with the bath water. Cannot be translated, but it means throw away something useful because you want to get rid of something in relation with it.
"Throwing out the baby with the bathwater" is how we say it in English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlinkels View Post
Can someone give some background on this spamming? Is this a bot? 15 messages is not much on a forum like this, I think there are several hundreds of posts a day. And this forum is highly specialized, what yield would a spammer expect? Why it is worth it? Sending out 1 million mails a day I can imagine, but this...
Spambots intentionally post slowly, to avoid detection. Also, if it was indeed a bot then it probably did make thousands of posts per day: just not all to the same forum.

The fact that he edited his posts later on, though, indicates that LQ was a very high priority target.

Last edited by dugan; 03-27-2011 at 03:04 PM.
 
Old 03-27-2011, 03:12 PM   #24
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,572

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394
EDIT: If you google the username, you'll find other forums that he spammed. Depressingly, none of them list him as being banned. The results also contain many threads where it's clear that all of the participants are spambots.

Last edited by dugan; 03-27-2011 at 03:28 PM.
 
  


Reply

Tags
spam


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help catching a spammer abefroman Linux - Security 9 03-26-2009 02:21 PM
I am a spammer casinoforu Linux - Software 2 06-17-2007 06:54 PM
While Bert was caught right on 1k post another addict slipped ... neo77777 General 6 02-28-2003 03:17 PM
Another Guru slipped by us neo77777 General 14 01-14-2003 02:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration