Oolite Bulletins

I found this one very suspicious.

But after reading his other posts, probably he is just a little, errmmm..., strange?

I think you're getting a false positive there. Commander! Besides, the name and the posts are way too relevant to be a spammer.

Perhaps I'm over-sensitive, but I also have doubts about this post, and therefore the guy belonging to it: https://bb.oolite.space/profile.php?mode ... ile&u=2565

My question: Why would someone register with the Oolite forum and then post a question/comment which isn't related to Oolite in any way as a first "hello"?

My apologies, though, if he/she is legit.

Commander McLane wrote:

Perhaps I'm over-sensitive, but I also have doubts about this post, and therefore the guy belonging to it: https://bb.oolite.space/profile.php?mode ... ile&u=2565

My question: Why would someone register with the Oolite forum and then post a question/comment which isn't related to Oolite in any way as a first "hello"?

My apologies, though, if he/she is legit.

Beat ya to it.. I mentioned this one a few posts back..

Yup ... https://bb.oolite.space/profile.php?mode ... ile&u=2565 is a wrong 'un, no error. Seems to be a new breed: put up a semi-random but innocuous post, apparently with the intent of editing it later to include the spam.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Commander McLane wrote:

Perhaps I'm over-sensitive, but I also have doubts about this post, and therefore the guy belonging to it: https://bb.oolite.space/profile.php?mode ... ile&u=2565

My question: Why would someone register with the Oolite forum and then post a question/comment which isn't related to Oolite in any way as a first "hello"?

My apologies, though, if he/she is legit.

Beat ya to it.. I mentioned this one a few posts back..

Do:h! And I even quoted you on that!

Apparently it's better to link to the spammers without tags, so that the member number is visible in plain sight.

Or this old spam assassin needs new glasses, or something like that...

Commander McLane wrote:

Apparently it's better to link to the spammers without tags, so that the member number is visible in plain sight.

Good point.. will do..

Just a thought.. Is it worth making it very clear on the signup page that the board has a number of eagle-eyed Spammer Assassins (and lots of willing assistants) that will put any spammer out of business very quickly, so they may as well not bother, if that is their intent?

Diziet Sma wrote:

Just a thought.. Is it worth making it very clear on the signup page that the board has a number of eagle-eyed Spammer Assassins (and lots of willing assistants) that will put any spammer out of business very quickly, so they may as well not bother, if that is their intent?

No.

Edit: No it isnt worth it, spammers are not likely to spend time reading such text, nor believe it, nor in fact care too much. They are also not especially likely to be real people, they are more likely to be bots which will take no notice.

Who would have thought that spambots would be the first ones ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Test

... but then, it does make sense in retrospect: Lots of variation, short generation cycles and harsh selection make for fast evolutionary processes. And that with the selector being not to be recognised as, well, non-human too fast.

To be fair, the Turing Test doesnt really apply to bots, as they mostly paste in pre-written text.

In addition, it might be fair to claim that many human forum users (not here in fact, but on many internet sites) are doing their bit to lower the bar by failing to observe normal human behavior, and grammar, making a one-off post much harder to detect.

Cmdr James wrote:

In addition, it might be fair to claim that many human forum users (not here in fact, but on many internet sites) are doing their bit to lower the bar by failing to observe normal human behavior, and grammar, making a one-off post much harder to detect.

People not passing the Turing Test themselves





Sadly, I think you are spot-on.

@Cmdr James:



@Admins of the forums:

Why not automatically delete all accounts that have a posting count of 0, and are still at 0 say, three months later?

Lestradae wrote:

@Admins of the forums:

Why not automatically delete all accounts that have a posting count of 0, and are still at 0 say, three months later?

Some of these people are legit lurkers. I's easier when you can log in to see/follow where new posts are being made, you can subscribe to threads et.c.

If they don't spam, they're doing nothing wrong.