LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Mobile (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-mobile-81/)
-   -   Ringtone and alarm sounds S9 (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-mobile-81/ringtone-and-alarm-sounds-s9-4175677201/)

bellacampen 06-17-2020 02:55 AM

Ringtone and alarm sounds S9
 
I've recently upgraded my S9 to S10 note phone. Is there any way to get my Alarm & Ringtones from my old S9 to my new S10 note because in my opinion the current ones are far too silent.
I updated my phone through Samsung, so I no longer have access to a S9. Tap here to help. Thanks.

TenTenths 06-17-2020 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellacampen (Post 6135225)
Is there any way to get my Alarm & Ringtones from my old S9 to my new S10

Yes, there's Alarms, Ringtones and Notifications folders that contain the relevant files. (Although I think Alarms can also be stored under Ringtones).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellacampen (Post 6135225)
I no longer have access to a S9

If you don't have access to the old phone you're not going to get very far.

BrownLuther007 12-02-2020 07:21 AM

If you have the link for it now, just download it on note 10 and select it. or you can search the old one on the internet and manually select it. Android seems too flexible enough to let you do that.

TB0ne 12-02-2020 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownLuther007 (Post 6190947)
If you have the link for it now, just download it on note 10 and select it. or you can search the old one on the internet and manually select it. Android seems too flexible enough to let you do that.

Really?? Why don't you post the link then? You've just joined, have had six posts that reopened old threads with no/duplicate content or answers.

ondoho 12-03-2020 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellacampen (Post 6135225)
I've recently upgraded my S9 to S10 note phone. Is there any way to get my Alarm & Ringtones from my old S9 to my new S10 note because in my opinion the current ones are far too silent. My ringtone is: http://spam.com

I updated my phone through Samsung, so I no longer have access to a S9. Tap here to help. Thanks.

Spammer.
Apparently one of those that come back later and edit spam links into their posts.
I strongly suspect that BrownLuther007 is another of those.

TB0ne 12-03-2020 08:59 AM

Agreed....posted just to see if there was a response.

ondoho 12-17-2020 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarlet Michelle (Post 6196486)
It's great that it is guided and fixed here. My phone is having a bit of a spam problem.

And another spammer.
Couldn't we just nuke the whole thread?
Seems to be one of those keywords that attracts nothing but.

TB0ne 12-17-2020 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 6196516)
And another spammer.
Couldn't we just nuke the whole thread?
Seems to be one of those keywords that attracts nothing but.

I have suggested over the years to do first five (or ten) post moderation, to weed these folks out. I can point to (and I'm sure you can too) a bunch of accounts that I'm 99.9% certain are spammers, who haven't posted spam yet. Easy to spot, and having such folks go through moderation would probably deter them.

jsbjsb001 12-17-2020 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne (Post 6196592)
I have suggested over the years to do first five (or ten) post moderation, to weed these folks out. I can point to (and I'm sure you can too) a bunch of accounts that I'm 99.9% certain are spammers, who haven't posted spam yet. Easy to spot, and having such folks go through moderation would probably deter them.

I reported something like 15 - 20 newly created accounts through the "Contact Us" form that hadn't posted yet just the other night, that where clearly spammer accounts. And they all had the same MO, so whoever/whatever created those accounts has been hitting this site for a long time. They typically have 4 or 5 digits at the end of the username (for example something like "aghawhhrrahher5433"), and if you look in their user profile it's fairly obvious they are nothing but spammers. I don't know why Jeremy can't include the same MO in the existing spam filter to block the accounts before they even have a chance to post any spam in the first place.

boughtonp 12-17-2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne (Post 6196592)
I have suggested over the years to do first five (or ten) post moderation, to weed these folks out. I can point to (and I'm sure you can too) a bunch of accounts that I'm 99.9% certain are spammers, who haven't posted spam yet. Easy to spot, and having such folks go through moderation would probably deter them.

Spambots don't bother to check if posts get moderated, and just keep sending them anyway, creating more works for the mods.

I'd simply have a check that blocked the post if (UserPostCount <= X and Content contains '[url=') with a suitable message.

Genuine new users normally post URLs directly (resulting in "[url]" instead), whilst spammers either want keywords attached or try hiding the link.

Having X as low as 3 would be enough to get the vast majority, without being too big an inconvenience.


jsbjsb001 12-17-2020 09:23 AM

Here's 4 more I just found and reported:

annetaeyndexta8589
ajenztop4560
aolguttsy9391
aolauyandext7222

TB0ne 12-17-2020 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boughtonp (Post 6196599)
Spambots don't bother to check if posts get moderated, and just keep sending them anyway, creating more works for the mods.

I'd simply have a check that blocked the post if (UserPostCount <= X and Content contains '[url=') with a suitable message.

Genuine new users normally post URLs directly (resulting in "[url]" instead), whilst spammers either want keywords attached or try hiding the link.

Having X as low as 3 would be enough to get the vast majority, without being too big an inconvenience.

Good idea as well, but a large number of them post 'real' messages like:
  • "Very good information! I will follow this thread closely"
  • "Thanks for your solution"
  • "<repeats post/question from earlier in thread>"
  • etc.
All blatantly obvious, just to get past the first X posts, then they go back an edit things to include the links. A canned response saying "Yeah, you've posted nothing of value, so your post was removed." that a moderator could send with a single-click would do it.

One thing I have noticed is that 99% of them come from either Windows 7 or Mac users, based on the sidebar identification, but that can be spoofed of course.

boughtonp 12-17-2020 10:38 AM


 
I'm not sure how many of the bots are specifically targetting LQ directly, so unsure whether they would adapt their behaviour in response to something other places don't do.

Giving mods anti-spam power is fine, but they can't be online all the time, so the less manual work involved the better. (So long as it doesn't deter real users.)

Things like rare user agents and zero-content posts should be detectable with a script - there must be a score-based anti-spam system out there (like SpamAsssasin, but forum-focused)?
(I'd normally go search but I'm hungry so I'm going to go eat instead.)


TenTenths 12-17-2020 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boughtonp (Post 6196626)
there must be a score-based anti-spam system out there

Yeah, I've a rather simplistic word score based one on my own forum.

I've also things like any posts where the user tries to post (or edit a post to include) a link gets marked for manual moderation until the user has X posts.

Proxy server detection, ISP identification.

Also require everyone to select the country they are registering from in a drop-down and if the GeoIP doesn't match the country they've selected then their registration goes in to a queue for a human decision. (Amazing how many "US" registrations come from "IN" IP addresses!)

I've also previously implemented things like "Disposable E-Mail" domain detection.

And of course making use of resources like Stop Forum Spam checklists.

HOWEVER given that there's a lot of new users who post things like "I followed the instructions at www/blah/blah and it's not working" or are asked to follow up with "Well what instructions did you follow" and they then post the above, I think the sledgehammer URL detection methodology would discourage legitimate users from posting here.

In general the moderators on here are quick to react when posts are reported and there are many of us who are quick enough to report, so the overall level of Spam that gets through is really pretty low.

boughtonp 12-17-2020 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenTenths (Post 6196655)
HOWEVER given that there's a lot of new users who post things like "I followed the instructions at www/blah/blah and it's not working" or are asked to follow up with "Well what instructions did you follow" and they then post the above, I think the sledgehammer URL detection methodology would discourage legitimate users from posting here.

Yes, that's why I was specifically advocating a non-sledgehammer approach that didn't affect those new users posting URLs but did affect spammers posting links.


Quote:

In general the moderators on here are quick to react when posts are reported and there are many of us who are quick enough to report, so the overall level of Spam that gets through is really pretty low.
The spam link above was posted eleven hours ago and reported nine hours ago, but since the sole moderator listed for this forum was last active March 2019 it's not clear how long it will remain up for.

I don't know how many spam attempts are made, so it may well only be a tiny amount that actually get through, but given the amount I've been noticing I would have to disagree with "really pretty low".

And again, the ideal situation is to reduce the need to even report spam by blocking the unambiguous spammers automatically (without affecting genuine users). And more can definitely be done in that regard than is currently done.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 AM.