Superaintit said:then it could be a young group of hackers trying out stuff that others made.
Superaintit said:From a technical point of view, the why is because there hasn't been anybody yet with the technical skill to prevent many posts in a short time
Hi-FiOutlaw said:All this could be reduced a lot, if WHF made a minimum 10 posts to new comers to be able to creat a new thread.
daveh75 said:It's just spam, gents...
spiny norman said:Superaintit said:then it could be a young group of hackers trying out stuff that others made.
Don't think it's anything as clever as hackers: it's just simple cut and paste spamming.
Superaintit said:From a technical point of view, the why is because there hasn't been anybody yet with the technical skill to prevent many posts in a short time
I thought this site had some kind of spam filtering, which occasionally blocks 'innocent' posters from putting up genuine links or pix or whatever. Can't see how it manages to block 'normal' users, yet apparently lets multispammers sail through. Baffling!
I did a few, copy and paste of business directory.Pedro2 said:Did anyone attempt translation?
expat_mike said:The spam filter rules are updated by either a technical specialist, or the cheaper haymarket solution is to use a spam filter which uses Artificial Intelligence techniques, to learn what is spam and then update the rules. A problem with the AI approach is that it can be slow to learn, and not very intelligent (so it blocks legit posters as well).
Joe Cox said:Kind words as always, Norman.
Who cares about spam anyway, ban him Joe!spiny norman said:Joe Cox said:Kind words as always, Norman.
The Kraken awakes! ;-)
I was of course referring to the operation of the spam filtering, which even you must admit is all over the place, and has been for a very long time now, despite repeated spamming attacks. They keep getting through, while genuine users appear to continue to have problems posting. So something is clearly amiss, with no ability (or will?) to fix it.
gel said:Who cares about spam anyway, ban him Joe!
chebby said:Answer to the spam question:- At the very least, those who wrote the forum rules care about it.
Regarding your request to ban Spiny Norman:- Is that because he was critical of the site's anti-spam software? Or because you've had disagreements with him? Why?
No offence meant Norman.spiny norman said:chebby said:Answer to the spam question:- At the very least, those who wrote the forum rules care about it.
Regarding your request to ban Spiny Norman:- Is that because he was critical of the site's anti-spam software? Or because you've had disagreements with him? Why?
Gel gets very protective if anyone criticises the site's anti-spam software, especially when it's clearly working so well. ;-)
It was also pretty obvious that I was just messing about and that you obviously not going to get banned.gel said:No offence meant Norman.spiny norman said:chebby said:Answer to the spam question:- At the very least, those who wrote the forum rules care about it.
Regarding your request to ban Spiny Norman:- Is that because he was critical of the site's anti-spam software? Or because you've had disagreements with him? Why?
Gel gets very protective if anyone criticises the site's anti-spam software, especially when it's clearly working so well. ;-)
gel said:It was also pretty obvious that I was just messing about and that you obviously not going to get banned.
Thats good Norman.spiny norman said:gel said:It was also pretty obvious that I was just messing about and that you obviously not going to get banned.
Thank you for showing me mercy: I feel like an enormous weight has been lifted from my shoulders, and will now go about my day with a renewed spring in my step.
spiny norman said:gel said:It was also pretty obvious that I was just messing about and that you obviously not going to get banned.
Thank you for showing me mercy: I feel like an enormous weight has been lifted from my shoulders, and will now go about my day with a renewed spring in my step.