|
They'll be back like a rancid fart after a bad curry.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
And the next one testing spamming tools, detected it at same two Q/A pages again... and lots others.
He/she added fake answer with random text from random profiles (just one example). Good luck! 
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I just got on CP - "Error: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.. Ticket: 2383374. Server: Web22".
And I always thought I get "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" only in my code.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm getting it to when I try to delete a spam message.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I'm getting it to when I try to delete a spam message.
That is when I get it too.
|
|
|
|
|
If I get to one and modify it and then delete it, it deletes fine, and even disappears from the list of responses.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I know this is going to inconvenience new users, but maybe they should be required to respond to an email that redirects them to a CP webpage on in order to post messages. This could be either time-based or reputation points based (or both).
Yeah, it sucks that you have to consider this, but the current state of affairs is becoming unbearable. You can also filter the URLs posted in the new user's messages, and if a spam url is discovered, the user's account is automatically deleted.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I more step when there are already a number of hoops to go through?
Wrong approach.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, I recognize that it's an inconvenience for new users, but the steps that have already been taken are proving to be largely ineffectual.
Since there's no way you can block a given IP, and you've done everything you can regarding new-user signup, it looks to me like you have to take the next logical step. I would start with filtering out ALL HTML, AND auto-banning any new user that includes certain words/phrases in an email.
I'm only saying this because the spammers are STILL getting past the registration requirements.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: and you've done everything you can regarding new-user signup
Actually, I haven't. what I've been doing is manually running search-and-destroy code to test it and make sure it's not going to cause false-positives. It's at the point where I'm confident it will, at the worst, not cause other's problems so I'll make that live today.
Slow and steady. No need to come out with guns blazing from the get-go.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: No need to come out with guns blazing from the get-go.
That's not the JSOP way.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: No need to come out with guns blazing from the get-go.
Who me?
Actually, there *is* a need... 
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
<glances down at your sig. Glances back up. Rolls eyes slightly.>
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I can definitely take care of the problem for you. The end justifies the means.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
There are at least 200 new spammer accounts that were registered *today* (with the word cialis and/or viagra in them)
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
modified on Friday, April 30, 2010 6:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the techniques mentioned are already in place, and some would make using the site extremely painful if you were, say, behind a firewall. CAPTCHA, while effective against automated attacks, is useless against manual spam. And it's very, very cheap to have spam posted manually.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to reply to Abhinev's answer to todays CCC and was informed that the message was already posted.
Er... No It Wasn't!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Odd, It took a reply afterwards, but only when I reworded it.
Strange goings on.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Go and buy a lottery ticket. You may have just had a CRC collision.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
[AGOG] Really?
"But Professor, the odds against that must be phenomenal!"
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if the options are a bug vs. a one in 4 billion random event then clearly has to be a CRC collision, right?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I am off to buy that lottery ticket in a clear case of Occam's Strop!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
If there are 4 billion possible hashes, then there is a 1 in 4,000 chance of posting a duplicate hash (given the 1 million messages already in the Lounge, assuming these hashes are forum specific). Perhaps more likely than you think. Maybe you should point the hash to the original message (so, once you find a collision, you can confirm it by comparing the actual messages).
|
|
|
|
|
what algorithm you are using, I would prefer this[^]
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
Now with 26% more Twitter
