# **SPAM Update**



## kcp (Feb 2, 2003)

There is a new kind of spam around; White spam - it looks something like this:



Spammer said:


> Thanks for sharing this useful information. It's great.
> this is interesting.. thanks so much for sharing!
> Spam message here - Visit our spam site -here - Get great deals on spam


The quote's blue background colors enables us to spot the spam but when posted in a regular message, the spam's white text on white background makes it impossible to discern.

Little do these spammers know that newly registered forum members have their first posts automatically sent to moderation queue, waiting to be 
manually approved by moderators and that the moderation queue in question is colour-blind; Meaning all text show-up to us as black on white regardless of the color formatting.

But somehow today, one of these white spam posts didn't wind-up in moderation queue :dontknow: It was fortunately reported by a member, however this means more of that spam could escape moderation queue - So please keep your eyes open for white Spam.


These spammers have a low post count (1 or 2)
They make short, simple, catch-all comments.
They post in already existing threads.

Thanks


----------



## DavidW (May 30, 2007)

Could you just eliminate the white text option?


----------



## kcp (Feb 2, 2003)

I've looked into that before and didn't find any way to. I could however (I think) substitute white text for another color. I'll check it out.

EDIT: Nope. The 2nd option doesn't work either


----------



## patchmo (May 9, 2008)

Does it look anythin' like this:?
:spam1::spam1::spam1::spam1::spam1::spam1::spam1:


----------



## Yamahaaltoplayer (Feb 14, 2008)

Ouh... what about making other forum skins available. At least some people will notice the "white" text.


----------



## Mal 2 (Mar 1, 2008)

DavidW said:


> Could you just eliminate the white text option?


White text has a legitimate purpose, it is sometimes used to hide "spoilers" in a message. Only by deliberately highlighting would one be able to read such text.


----------



## patchmo (May 9, 2008)

Mal 2 said:


> White text has a legitimate purpose...


Plus, at SOTW we want to be all-inclusive. The :twisted: one even makes an occasional appearance!:TGNCHK:


----------



## kcp (Feb 2, 2003)

I banned at least 6 spammers today and deleted more white spam that escaped the vigilance of the filter and of our trusted members - White spam is tricky to spot and the spammers are getting clever  Here's a new variation of the white spam:



Spammer said:


> Thanks for sharing this useful information. It's great.
> this is interesting.. thanks so much for sharing!
> Spam message here​


Note that the white spam is aligned at the right end of the message box.

Since we read and write from left to right, we would not think of highlighting the text with the mouse pointer from right to left or from the top left to all the way to the bottom right of the post - Many of the spam I deleted today were like this one and had been around on active threads for a few days already.


----------



## CooolJazzz (Jul 20, 2008)

I just reported one that had the spam link in their "signature". Is that a new method they're using now, or have they been doing that for a while?


----------



## kcp (Feb 2, 2003)

^Spam link in signatures has been going on for a while. Since the post doesn't contain any spam, it doesn't trigger the spam filter. As for newly registered members, they must have their first couple of posts manually approved by a moderator before their post show in the forum. However, depending on the method used by the moderator to approve/dissaprove posts, the spam may be missed.

In "forum mode" for instance, posts and threads that need appoval (invisible to you guys) are marked with a special icon - All we need to do is click on the post/thread to view it and approve or dissaprove. In forum mode, the spam is visible in the signature link. But the down side is that we have to approve/dissaprove those posts/threads marked with that special icon one-by-one, which can be time consuming if there are a lot of them and we can miss some along the way, too.

So the other alternative is approving/dissaproving in Control Pannel mode. We get this list (moderation queue) of all posts and threads waiting to be approved or dissaproved. It's much faster but the down side is that we don't get to see the signature line in Control Pannel mode. 

This said, I usually do both. Each time I log-in I go to the "New Post" list and see if there are any marked with that special icon where if there's any I approve/dissaprove them one-by-one - Then before loging-off I go into Control Pannel mode to quickly check if there are new posts and threads that require approval/dissaproval. - That's how I do it but other admins may have a different method.


----------



## Sigmund451 (Aug 8, 2003)

How about a policy to have them publicly flogged?


----------



## kcp (Feb 2, 2003)

What does flogged mean??


----------



## jrvinson45 (Nov 22, 2003)

kcp said:


> What does flogged mean??


A "flogging" was a method of corporal punishment in less civilized days in which the person being punished is usually strung up shirtless and whipped with a leather whip or a "cat of nine-tails" in a public place. It has an equivalent in Singapore called "caning" where the punishee is beaten with split-bamboo canes. It's a lot less humane than the guillotine.


----------



## kcp (Feb 2, 2003)

ah. Ok. 
Thanks 

No flogging spammers. As I explained in another thread somewhere earlier today, most spammers are not even real people, they're just bots. They don't have feelings and they don't suffer pain.


----------



## jrvinson45 (Nov 22, 2003)

kcp said:


> ah. Ok.
> Thanks
> 
> No flogging spammers. As I explained in another thread somewhere earlier today, most spammers are not even real people, they're just bots. They don't have feelings and they don't suffer pain.


In that case, feel free to employ the guillotine.


----------



## cpete (Mar 24, 2008)

jrvinson45 said:


> In that case, feel free to employ the guillotine.


"format c: /q"
Is the digital version of a guillotine, very quick and the bytes don't suffer long.


----------



## Mal 2 (Mar 1, 2008)

cpete said:


> jrvinson45 said:
> 
> 
> > In that case, feel free to employ the guillotine.
> ...


I think you meant:
rm -rf /

Spammers usually want to use control machines that can't be infected themselves.


----------



## SuperAction80 (Oct 8, 2007)

I take it that the newly installed "Quick Reply Lock" is a way to help combat the spam bots?


----------



## kcp (Feb 2, 2003)

SuperAction80 said:


> I take it that the newly installed "Quick Reply Lock" is a way to help combat the spam bots?


Yes, I think so


----------



## cpete (Mar 24, 2008)

[/QUOTE]

I think you meant:
rm -rf /
[/QUOTE]

Hey, those are Unix fighting words! take this:
shred --verbose /dev/sda5


----------

