[SPAM] Strategy . . . Comments Wanted

[walton]

We have a capcha system and email confirmation that has kept waves of spam away. However, we have had a few get through. Today, five.

We can delete the actual spam and we can delete the email account/member permanently, which I do, when I can. The is reactive.

I am thinking that I should select the 800 inactive members . . . who have not replied to the signup email, most are spammers but not all . . . and delete them all. I don't want to delete legitimate potential members, but I think a proactive approach might be better.

Comments?

[Litera]

The trick is to steer a course between the spam-infestation of CreateSpace and the impenetrability (hopefully temporary) of the Ingram Spark forum.

Is there a test that can be applied to new account applicants - one which is easy to pass if you are a self-publisher, but easy to fail if you are a spam merchant? It might be worth seeing if we could come up with something of this kind, since Captcha is losing its effectiveness. Does anyone have any good ideas?

Just off the top of my head, how about enforcing moderation of the first 1 or 2 posts of any new account? Or can you force accounts to send their first post to an as yet non-existent INTRODUCTION sub-forum?

Anyway, to answer your question: accounts that have never been used are, by definition, not spam sources, so I am not sure what would be gained by deleting them. However, if they are still inactive after 12 months, say, maybe then they are expendable.

[Seisa]

Is there at least a way to block posts with certain words? We get a lot of porn spam that actually includes the word "porn" in the body of the post...

[danwiz]

I say that if they didn't even reply to the signup email then they have no intention of ever posting anything useful. I mean, if somebody has a REASON for coming here (like to ask a question about publishing) then they are going to reply to the signup email immediately and post their question. So, my vote is for getting rid of the 800 inactive members - probably mostly with weird usernames like kiwtetoy or something.

I'd still like to know the answer to the question I posed in the other SPAM thread - the one that I started - does it do any good to ban by IP address, by email address, what's the best way? I've been banning by username and also by IP address, it sounds like you're banning by email address?? Answer please.

[David Wake]

I'd go for deleting them all. As has been pointed out, we're not banning legitimate users, just forcing them to rejoin when they have a question. It's only inactive people who have never done anything, isn't it?

As for banning words like 'porn', that would ban that suggestion, this post and anyone who is self-publishing a porn book.

[GoMePub2]

I also agree with removing unused accounts. I'm sure if someone was deleted and wanted to be reinstated, they would take the time to contact Walton personally. I know I would.

As to the banning words like porn ...
Is there a way to have the submissions using words like 'porn' put on an approval list. Meaning, if someone does submit using the word 'porn,' it would be reviewed before being approved for post to the wall. I know it's more work for you, Walton, but it would create a barrier of protection.
~ Kay

[Phoenix]

I believe the common thread for spammers is the inclusion of a link/URL in every spammer's post. I think permission should be required for any first post to contain an active link/URL? That may upset a rare first-time legitimate self-pubber, but I'm sure they would understand if it was explained in the little pop-up window they receive when trying to insert a link? The window could say something like...

To help us reduce unwanted spam in this forum, permission from one of our Moderators is required before enabling a live website link in your post. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. One of our Moderators will attend to your request as soon as possible.

One of the mods checks the suspect URL and either deletes the member for posting spam or allows the post with the URL to go through as a legitimate post from a self-pubber.

Joe.

[danwiz]

There are 9 spam posts this morning and I am not sure that I have time to deal with them - today is a busy day. I'll do my best. I am getting really tired of the amount of time that must be spent getting rid of spam though. It takes WAY TOO MANY clicks to ban a member and get rid of the thread.

[danwiz]

Okay, I managed to ban all 9 of them. My suggestion is that you look at all banned members registration countries and just make membership from those countries impossible. The members banned today stated they were from Burma, Afghanistan, Russia and more. My idea is to make membership possible only from the USA, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany and a few other European western European countries. If a person is not from one of those countries then make it necessary for them to email you and specifically ask to become a member.

From being around the CS forums for around 6 years now, the only people who post real questions/comments there seem to be from the major countries, not from Russia, Burma, etc.

[Phoenix]

After reading the stupid spam post on here today, I would like to amend my previous suggestion by stating that all first posts should be moderated. If you guys need a hand to achieve this I am more than happy to put up my hand?
Joe.