# Slut Spam attack on SOTW last night - thanks for the reports.



## Pete Thomas (Sep 12, 2004)

As many of you are aware last night SOTW was subject to an attack by a spammer posting both new threads and replies in existing threads. There were 10 posts in various places which were more or less the same format - an image of a scantily clad lady, an invitiaion to click on an email address if you would like to see her naked as she was feeling slutty. These appeared to be from various "escort" sites (not sure if in regard to real live prostitutes or online webcam porn and TBH I don't really want to know any details).

We had at least nine members report in a very short space of time and it was dealt with.

I'd like to thank all those members and say that these reports are very very helpful because moderators are unable to monitor every minute of the day or night (some of the post replies seemed to imply that we could or should do that).

We do have an automated system (Akismet) which is supposed to catch these sorts of things and not allow the posts to be visible until approved by a moderator, but in this case it did not work, nor do some of the methods we had in the old days.

I have asked the owners, Verticalscope, for admins and mods to be given greater powers to stop all of these posts even before becoming public, and also for better ways for us to be notified more quickly of reports. We will keep pour fingers crossed that they can help.

Meanwhile all reports are extremely useful (whether it is spam, obscenity, classified/vendor, cross posting or any infringments of the rules).


----------



## Pete Thomas (Sep 12, 2004)

I would also suggest when you see things like this to please not reply within the thread, however witty the responses are (and some were quite funny ), because this just alerts the spammers to the fact their posts were seen, plus it also gives us more stuff to clear up.

Note that we _*can*_ use an auto spam cleaner which will ban the spammer and delete all of their posts in one go, however it is not so useful in this case as it does not delete all the replies (or quotes maybe) and so it is necessary to manually follow all the reports and delete the offeding post and the replies.

So: please report, don't reply to spam, don't quote, spam! Thanks


----------



## Arundo Donax (Oct 25, 2007)

Something to consider: on another saxophone site I visit, one cannot create or reply to a post without first correctly responding to a popup challenge question, such as “What’s an alternate fingering for Bb?”, “What saxes did Paul Desmond like?”, or “What famous musician have you gigged with?”

That helps eliminate the riff-raff.


----------



## AddictedToSax (Aug 18, 2007)

No thanks to that. I'm getting tired of all the "are you a robot" crap on other sites. Sometimes they try to put you through 4 or 5 challenges before they let you through. I just give up and move on when that happens.


----------



## bandmommy (Jul 4, 2007)

I moderate on SOTW Facebook. 
Some of the people who ask to join have no clue that sax and sex aren't the same thing. 
****ers and ****er bait. Decline and block!


----------



## ZootTheSim (Jun 22, 2016)

AddictedToSax said:


> No thanks to that. I'm getting tired of all the "are you a robot" crap on other sites.


+1. As an actual robot, I can attest that shibboleth queries don't work. We find our way in regardless.

Now back to today's practice tune, Daisy Bell. 🤖


----------



## scrollshank (Mar 13, 2015)

If some of the replies were particularly witty, it's a shame that the replies couldn't have been saved for those of us who were not around.


----------



## Arundo Donax (Oct 25, 2007)

AddictedToSax said:


> No thanks to that&#8230;


'twas intended as a joke based on recent threads. I mentioned it only because on one gig I showed Paul my own alternate Bb fingering, which he adopted for his SBA.


----------



## datsaxman (Nov 28, 2005)

Sure ... add an "are you a robot" quiz and half of the regulars will disappear instantly.


----------



## Pete Thomas (Sep 12, 2004)

scrollshank said:


> If some of the replies were particularly witty, it's a shame that the replies couldn't have been saved for those of us who were not around.


No because out of context with the slut post removed it made no sense and wasn't witty. This is my point, replying to spam just makes more work for mods.

And any I think above I probably exaggerated the quality of the wittiness anyway.


----------



## PenPotter (Aug 6, 2021)

Pete Thomas said:


> As many of you are aware last night SOTW


----------



## PenPotter (Aug 6, 2021)

Thank you Pete. I really appreciate all the "housekeeping" that goes into this site's management. It must be a labor of love. I have learned a great deal here. Experts abound and discourse is polite.


----------



## Hassles (Jun 11, 2011)

the Mods are our Gatekeepers - under appreciated, under respected & under understood - but we need them, they keep us all safe.


----------



## scrollshank (Mar 13, 2015)

Pete Thomas said:


> No because out of context with the slut post removed it made no sense and wasn't witty. This is my point, replying to spam just makes more work for mods.
> 
> And any I think above I probably exaggerated the quality of the wittiness anyway.


Sorry Pete, I did not intend that that comment be taken seriously. Thanks for your work.


----------



## Pete Thomas (Sep 12, 2004)

PenPotter said:


> It must be a labor of love.


More like masochism. Members hate us. The owners hate us...



Hassles said:


> the Mods are our Gatekeepers - under appreciated, under respected & under understood - but we need them, they keep us all safe.


Thankyou !


----------



## Pete Thomas (Sep 12, 2004)

Arundo Donax said:


> "What's an alternate fingering for Bb?", "What saxes did Paul Desmond like?", or "What famous musician have you gigged with?"


This might work on other sites but not this one. We get posts from non-saxophone players (thinking of taking it up, parents of children who are learning etc.)

That would make it too elitist. Those specific questions would definitely lose a lot of potential members.


----------



## lydian (Oct 25, 2016)

I think the spammer just made a simple spelling error. She probably meant to post to sexontheweb and just hit the wrong key.

But seriously, spam bots usually make several posts in a very short time. Does your web host have any way to detect high post frequency and automatically block based on that?


----------



## Arundo Donax (Oct 25, 2007)

Pete Thomas said:


> This might work on other sites &#8230;


My reply was a joke - spinning off of recent threads here.

Clearly, I didn't make it obvious. Sorry.


----------



## BH9 (Mar 26, 2007)

Those were the most interesting posts I've seen here in quite a while, and right, that is as much my fault as anyone's. 

Nevertheless, thank you everyone for your tireless vigilance, and moderator for your labor.


----------



## turf3 (Mar 9, 2015)

Pete Thomas said:


> ... There were 10 posts in various places which were more or less the same format - an image of a scantily clad lady,...


That's not a lady.


----------

