Dev1 Galaxy Forum / Discussion on possible new spam control

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (golinux) — Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:33:59 +0000

The spam situation has been resolved. Spammers are being filtered at the door. But we can't get a break. Now our host's reverse DNS is down so some registration confirmation emails are not being delivered and we're having to manually enable them.

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (fanderal) — Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:08:35 +0000

FOSSuser wrote:

Have you thought about using captcha - http://captcha.net/

Was thinking of suggesting the same, but when searching the Past Month I found a lot of stuff like this: robot beats 'I am not a robot.'

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (golinux) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:50:42 +0000

FOSSuser wrote:

Have you thought about using captcha - http://captcha.net/

Chanku says it requires JS and wants to avoid that..

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (FOSSuser) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:10:38 +0000

Have you thought about using captcha - http://captcha.net/

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (sgage) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:16:48 +0000

I see no problem with account activation.

As someone who has been using the Internet since before it was the Internet (I was on ArpaNet back in the day), I must say that the Web has become a cesspool. A classic case of 'the Tragedy of the Commons'. I wish I had the smarts to come up with a solution to the pollution. It seems there ought to be a way to find these a**holes and prosecute them to the max. Except, freedom. Oh well.

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (golinux) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:09:26 +0000

@Pick2 . . . bots are much more sophisticated now than they were back in '04. I have not noticed any 'groups of spammers'. It's a steady flow. Some domains are more prominent than others but I see no pattern that would ever allow 'account activation' to be disabled. Even if we could get a script to nuke them based on the SFS db, some would still get through. It would however, simplify the process of activating legitimate accounts. The only solution I can see that would be 100% effective is to 'jail' the bots at the door with account activation.

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (Pick2) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:30:53 +0000

Way back in '04 , We used to kick in 'account activation' till that group of spammers went away , then kick it back out untill they came back. Month on , couple months off as needed. Spamming is an arms race , you will just have to be vigilant , and switch your tools out when needed. They find ways around most of them , SFS included.
Good luck and happy hunting !

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (Chanku) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:27:27 +0000

Although, if someone is willing to help out and create a way for us to use the SFS database in conjunction with our own (with some restrictions/requirements. Mainly regarding backup size) in an automated fashion, then we would be willing to do that as well (whether or not it's in place of, or in conjunction with this plan is up to what occurs.).

Well at least I would be willing to do that, I doubt golinux would have strong objections to that either, especially since it would require less work for everyone after it's implemented.

However if we could stay on topic and hear feedback on this plan, that would be nice

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (golinux) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:32:30 +0000

ralph.ronnquist wrote:

Maybe https://www.stopforumspam.com could be of some use?

We've been using SFS since we went online. The spam domains are well-known to us and we can delete them with confidence. But it is CONSTANT manual labor and some are getting through before we can get to them. This approach is not sustainable. We have not yet found a way to automate deleting those registrations against the SFS database.

The question asked here is whether forum members have any thoughts about or objections to requiring activation of new accounts via admin intervention.

Re: Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (ralph.ronnquist) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:06:15 +0000

Maybe https://www.stopforumspam.com could be of some use?

Discussion on possible new spam control

dummy@example.com (golinux) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:37:52 +0000

UPDATE: The mod requiring answers to questions worked for a while but now the bots are finding us again. The best solution I can think of to deal with the bots is to require account activation. A new group with no posting privileges would contain all new registrations. An admin could then delete the bot accounts and move 'legitimate' accounts to the members group. This is distasteful because it is a type of censorship. But it's something I can live with and as the primary 'unverified' bot hunter, would be grateful for.

Chanku and I would appreciate feedback from all of you before we consider implementing this change. So please share your thoughts why you think this is or is not a good solution. Perhaps some of you can come up with some better ideas.

golinux