Log in

View Full Version : Dealing with Spam


sudikics
October 3rd, 2008, 10:37 PM
So the ML is discussing some new measures for dealing with the latest influx of spammers.

My idea is to prevent guests and members with less than ten posts from posting links.

Loki feels that this is restrictive and unnecessary.

So what do you, the members, think? Is this a good policy?

rzm61
October 3rd, 2008, 11:11 PM
DRILL BABY DRILL!

Oh wait, this isn't aboot off shore drilling?

Nevermind.

Anyway, like I said. Send the bitches to conventry. I don't feel the restrictionis needed with this small of a community.

And shit Sciky, do you wan't another riot because of more 'restrictions'?

Dr Goofy Mofo
October 3rd, 2008, 11:15 PM
That is a little to much. Hmmm maybe if we review the first post they make and go from there?

rzm61
October 3rd, 2008, 11:17 PM
Hmmm.

That's a good idea.

sudikics
October 4th, 2008, 02:07 AM
Fine. What if we only restrict their first post?

Dr Goofy Mofo
October 4th, 2008, 02:25 AM
If you do that then you can't tell if they tried i can tell you who is a spammer in my spammer game thread their profiles are all very easy to tell. In some threads you can review the post before hand and then set them to allow automatic later.

sudikics
October 4th, 2008, 04:31 PM
I just posted this in the ML, but I realised that people other than Loki and rzm should see this.

UPDATE:

So I've run the numbers. The banned user list currently holds 94 names. Note that Geoff pruned the members on August 16, but the oldest recorded ban was on February 13, 2008. That was 238 days ago.

So, our average ban rate in that time was about 0.4 bans per day or about 1 ban every 2.5 days.

I said that there are 94 bans on the list.

Here's the bombshell: 35 of those bans have taken place in the past 4 days.

That is a 22-fold increase in spammers: almost 9 per day.

I don't know what kind of non-trouble you had, Loki, but 9 bans a day is extremely annoying.

Something must be done.

Echo
October 4th, 2008, 04:43 PM
Restrict the first post, or make it so that a member's first three posts can only be in the introduction forum.

I also mentioned to Sciky a couple of weeks ago that viewing the "now viewing" pages turns up that most of the 200 or so people viewing the forum are spiders and bots. Maybe the registration process should be modified a bit to help prevent bots from signing up.

sudikics
October 4th, 2008, 11:39 PM
There's an old thread in the ML dating to Alice's time about that problem. There's some way to restrict the Yahoo! bots (my guess is via the robots.txt file), which is probably a good idea at this point, because the problem was a lot less worse at that time, and it supposedly eats up bandwidth.

In other news, I have to ban at least 9 other spammers. The numbers are now 44 bans in the past 4 days out of 97 bans in the last 238, or a current rate of 11 spammers per day.

EDIT: By the way, I'm keep ing a list of the October spammers as a User Note in my profile. (It's the second note.)
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/usernote.php?do=viewuser&u=1652

sudikics
October 5th, 2008, 12:04 AM
UPDATE:

The situation is far, far worse than I thought. Thanks to Goofy's "Spammer Game" detective work, I have been able to make specified searches and come up with some numbers about the spammer situation.

The real help was how Goofy noticed that all of the spammer's bios said "Man." Advanced Member Search (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/memberlist.php?do=search) allows you to also search by Biography, so I searched only by looking for bios with "Man" in them. A lot of members who aren't spammers don't have this, but it was still clear as to who which we spammers.

I narrowed it down to a list of potential spammers, that is people who have joined since October 1, 2008 with "man" in their bios.

After reviewing the list, I have found 51 accounts that are almost definitely spammers. Their profiles match Goofy's observations.

I shall work on banning each and every one of them.

Oh, and this does a few things to the numbers.

We go from 44 October spammers to 95 October spammers.

We're dealing with almost 24 spammers registering every day.

Loki, rzm and I cannot keep up. Loki, please, do something.

Dr Goofy Mofo
October 5th, 2008, 01:22 AM
Glad I could help you find them, Keep up the good work! If new kinda spammer show up I will try to figure it out the best I can,

The Good Reverend Roger
October 5th, 2008, 05:00 PM
We don't have any spambots at all over at PD. :D

Echo
October 5th, 2008, 05:30 PM
We don't have any spambots at all over at PD. :D

I think I suggested modifying the registration process to be similar to that of Reformed CoG's, but I don't remember if I said that to Goofy or Sciky.

sudikics
October 5th, 2008, 06:43 PM
I think I suggested modifying the registration process to be similar to that of Reformed CoG's, but I don't remember if I said that to Goofy or Sciky.
Goofy.

Since some people just have really random usernames on the internet, it's hard to figure out if you really are looking at a spammer or not.

I'm currently only really able to tell by info they enter once they join. Otherwise, "EdwardMC" might have been a legitimate user.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 5th, 2008, 09:32 PM
Goofy.

Since some people just have really random usernames on the internet, it's hard to figure out if you really are looking at a spammer or not.

I'm currently only really able to tell by info they enter once they join. Otherwise, "EdwardMC" might have been a legitimate user.

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 5th, 2008, 10:47 PM
Fuck! Spambots OWN this board. :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
October 5th, 2008, 11:52 PM
My idea is to prevent guests and members with less than ten posts from posting links.


I don't see what the problem with that is. What's a member with less than 10 links gonna want to show us? And if he's not a spammer, he'll quickly get past 10 posts.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 6th, 2008, 12:28 AM
I don't see what the problem with that is. What's a member with less than 10 links gonna want to show us? And if he's not a spammer, he'll quickly get past 10 posts.

Why not just screen users before admitting them? You can ban by server, you know.

Echo
October 6th, 2008, 03:52 AM
Goofy.

Since some people just have really random usernames on the internet, it's hard to figure out if you really are looking at a spammer or not.

I'm currently only really able to tell by info they enter once they join. Otherwise, "EdwardMC" might have been a legitimate user.

I suppose that's true. I used the username w0332789 for a while, but it is a combination of my campus username and university ID. Wright State is stupid and gives us two accounts to keep up with.

I don't see what the problem with that is. What's a member with less than 10 links gonna want to show us? And if he's not a spammer, he'll quickly get past 10 posts.

Bingo. Use that to reinforce something that locks out bots during the sign up process. I can't remember if there was an image verification process when I signed up or not. I may sign up a sock puppet just to check.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 7th, 2008, 03:26 AM
:icon_lol:

Owned again.

Echo
October 7th, 2008, 04:16 AM
:icon_lol:

Owned again.

Yep. Apparently, I can get blowjob cumsuck bang blowblow jobsoral girlsebony blowjobshardcore ebony blowjobsoral surgeonoral annefree oral clipsgirl oralblowjob pics.

I think the one that piques my curiosity most is the surgeon...

The Good Reverend Roger
October 7th, 2008, 04:22 AM
Yep. Apparently, I can get blowjob cumsuck bang blowblow jobsoral girlsebony blowjobshardcore ebony blowjobsoral surgeonoral annefree oral clipsgirl oralblowjob pics.

I think the one that piques my curiosity most is the surgeon...

I had to tie my index fingers together to not click on that.

Echo
October 7th, 2008, 04:23 AM
I had to tie my index fingers together to not click on that.

It's tempting, but I just removed a virus from my computer yesterday, so I passed it up.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 7th, 2008, 04:40 AM
It's tempting, but I just removed a virus from my computer yesterday, so I passed it up.

I'm going to go glue my fingers to my ass, now.

TGRR,
MUST. NOT. CLICK!

sudikics
October 9th, 2008, 03:30 PM
For the record, we are now at 140 October 2008 spammers to 265 total spammers.

So over half of all recorded spammers with in the past 9 days.

Loki
October 10th, 2008, 09:37 PM
Let's start an anti-spam campaign.
If anyone signs up with a suspicious profile we ban them before they post.

That'll do the trick!



I'm losing the will to live :(

rzm61
October 11th, 2008, 01:05 AM
They all fit the same profile so what is so wrong with that?

However Loki, if you wish for me to wait for their first post to actually judge, then I will. Not a problem. :D

Loki
October 11th, 2008, 01:21 AM
They all fit the same profile so what is so wrong with that?

However Loki, if you wish for me to wait for their first post to actually judge, then I will. Not a problem. :D

That would be nice of you. Ta muchly!

sudikics
October 11th, 2008, 02:39 AM
Let's start an anti-spam campaign.
If anyone signs up with a suspicious profile we ban them before they post.

That'll do the trick!



I'm losing the will to live :(
Stop the histrionics. Ignoring the accounts that are obviously the spammer's does not make the problem go away. In fact, it makes it even worse, because
1) it makes it harder to fight back later on, and
2) it means the porn's opportunity to actually be posted and stay up for some time (which is likely given the fact that the mods aren't on 24/7) increases significantly.

In other words, ignoring the blatant spam accounts means that the porn's up for longer, and therefore the spammer "wins" for some amount of time.

By deleting the obviously spam-tastic account pre-posting, we are making it harder for the spammer to achieve his or her goal.

----------

Even if the above reason doesn't convince you, Loki, there is a better reason still for deleting the 0-post accounts. That reason is that the accounts are already advertising porn.

It's easy to get a list of the account to ban by performing an advanced member search on members with a bio containing "Man" and a join date in the past few days.

Is it possible for a non-spammer to be on the list? Of course. However, there is one feature of the spammers ont he list which is readily apparent: their websites.

The spammer's accounts link to websites which are malicious and/or pornographic.

This in its own right violates the Terms of Use of the site, and so, even without their making a single post, the accounts have filled the prerequisites for a permaban.

I'm expecting a response along the lines of the idea that they may have "accidentally" posting a homepage which was a porn site, and so they should still be allowed to exist until their first post, where we truly judge them.

Still, the links to the porn site must be removed. And guess what, Loki? You are the only member of the active Ministry who can change that kind of information. rzm and I can only change sigs, avatars, and profile pictures. It would be up to you to personally edit each and every spammer account to remove the malicious links from their info. Have I mentioned that we've recieved 150 spammers so far this month? Good luck on that, Loki.

In short: Loki, adopting a benefit-of-the-doubt approach is meaningless here, especially because they have already shown to be guilty. The accounts' similarities (complied mainly by Goofy) show that it is mind-bogglingly unliely that some normal person in time zone -12 GMT with that exact info is trying to access the CoG. Because if that person is having issues, and keeps making accounts to try desperately to post enlightening information, then they have yet to complain about it in the Guestroom.

Loki, the forum is being invaded by a spammer. Don't stand idly by.

Loki
October 11th, 2008, 03:16 AM
"Loki, the forum is being invaded by a spammer. Don't stand idly by."

I'm not :D
I don't feel the need to tell you what I'm doing though. You'd only e-mail LJ with my failings :D

G00gle
October 11th, 2008, 03:32 AM
I just wonder who it was that spent $75.00 for 90,000, or was it $125.00 for 150,000 unstoppable ads?
No, it wasn't me, I've better things to waste my money on.
But somebody did.

Loki
October 11th, 2008, 03:40 AM
Don't start me D!
I'm off to bed now but I'm not stupid. I know damned well someone is playing with us.

I'm a vengeful bastard so he'll get his shit back! With interest :D

The Good Reverend Roger
October 11th, 2008, 04:50 PM
"Loki, the forum is being invaded by a spammer. Don't stand idly by."

I'm not :D
I don't feel the need to tell you what I'm doing though. You'd only e-mail LJ with my failings :D


:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

I've tried to tell the mods here how we stopped the spam at PD, but they won't listen.

Loki
October 11th, 2008, 04:57 PM
:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

I've tried to tell the mods here how we stopped the spam at PD, but they won't listen.

I'm not too proud to ask for help Roger.
So I'm asking.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 11th, 2008, 05:38 PM
I'm not too proud to ask for help Roger.
So I'm asking.


PM'd.

rzm61
October 11th, 2008, 06:06 PM
:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

I've tried to tell the mods here how we stopped the spam at PD, but they won't listen.

You never tried to tell us. You said that there is no spam over at PD. If you wouldn't mind letting the mod squad in on your secret that would be awesome.

Because I wouldn't mind knowing how you do it.

Edit:
That would be nice of you. Ta muchly!

Not a problem. You need to let me know if I am overstepping my boundaries. I'm still new at the whole moderating thing, so please bear with me.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 12th, 2008, 06:36 AM
You never tried to tell us. You said that there is no spam over at PD. If you wouldn't mind letting the mod squad in on your secret that would be awesome.

I did tell you. Your inability to listen isn't my problem.

And I told Loki how it's done. He can do it, allow me to do it, or tell you all how to do it...because let's just say that I'm not terribly prone to do SHIT for you or Scikky right now. I wonder why?

Cain
October 12th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Its very easy, stopping spam.

You know, if you take 5 minutes and think it through. I believe I did most of the work on stopping the spam on PD, and its basically an automated system now. I don't think we've had a spambot in over a year.

Tsar Phalanxia
October 12th, 2008, 05:52 PM
I did tell you. Your inability to listen isn't my problem.

And I told Loki how it's done. He can do it, allow me to do it, or tell you all how to do it...because let's just say that I'm not terribly prone to do SHIT for you or Scikky right now. I wonder why?

Was it to make you a minister, and then you'd cancel, or claim to stop the spambots? Hmm, that sounds a little like extortion to me.

rzm61
October 12th, 2008, 06:07 PM
I did tell you. Your inability to listen isn't my problem.

[Citation needed] sir.

You always claim you did, then say the other person didn't read well enough. I've yet to see a clear explination that details how to derail and rid the spambots.

And I told Loki how it's done. He can do it, allow me to do it, or tell you all how to do it...because let's just say that I'm not terribly prone to do SHIT for you or Scikky right now. I wonder why?

You think I give a fuck if you're not prone do SHIT for me? :icon_lol:

Anyway, keep your grudge for whatever reason it is that you have one. I can't be arsed with it.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 12th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Was it to make you a minister, and then you'd cancel, or claim to stop the spambots? Hmm, that sounds a little like extortion to me.

Nope. I told him how to do it, and then he made me a minister.

And by your logic, the entire capitalist system is extortion. Is that REALLY what you meant to say?

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

The Good Reverend Roger
October 12th, 2008, 07:34 PM
[Citation needed] sir.

Sounds like you have a problem. I spoke up THREE times, telling you how to deal with it, and each time you and Scikky ignored me, because you were having a tantrum.

So why the fuck would I tell you now? :icon_lol:


You always claim you did, then say the other person didn't read well enough. I've yet to see a clear explination that details how to derail and rid the spambots.

Again, sounds like you have a problem. Your opinion has no value to me whatsoever, so go digging or don't. It makes no difference to me. Wait, actually it does, because it is in my interests that only Loki knows how to deal with it. That gives him an edge over you and Scikky, and he needs that right now, what with you guys constantly trying to get him fired.



You think I give a fuck if you're not prone do SHIT for me? :icon_lol:


I don't care, actually.


Anyway, keep your grudge for whatever reason it is that you have one. I can't be arsed with it.

Suits me. I have no problem bringing it up at random intervals, whenever you get pretentions of intellectual honesty.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 12th, 2008, 07:36 PM
Oh, look. More spammers. Perhaps Loki should get on the job (or allow me to do it).

Dr Goofy Mofo
October 12th, 2008, 08:00 PM
This is how you prove yourself worthy of ordainment:

1. Establish yourself within our online community. Since the Church has only recently been launched, our community is understandably small. Establishing an active online community is a very important goal the Church intends to uphold and meet. If you could help us achieve this worthy objective, we will be greatly appreciative and you'll be well on your way to the Ministry.

2. Donate time to our cause. This could be anything from helping with our website and / or graphic design work to emailing websites about our cause. You could also help vigorously promote the Church. How you donate your time (and maybe resources) is totally up to you, so take your pick. We'll NEVER demand money though. That's a definite no-no.


Hmm based on the site description Roger passes! Still think a vote would have been nice but I will not object!

Tsar Phalanxia
October 12th, 2008, 10:23 PM
1. Establish yourself within our online community. Since the Church has only recently been launched, our community is understandably small. Establishing an active online community is a very important goal the Church intends to uphold and meet. If you could help us achieve this worthy objective, we will be greatly appreciative and you'll be well on your way to the Ministry.


Fair enough. But has it been useful time? I mean, how many hours did ISA spend here?
2. Donate time to our cause. This could be anything from helping with our website and / or graphic design work to emailing websites about our cause. You could also help vigorously promote the Church. How you donate your time (and maybe resources) is totally up to you, so take your pick. We'll NEVER demand money though. That's a definite no-no.

He's given Loki a secret to stop spam that hasn't even worked. That's not a contribution, that's a scam.

Dr Goofy Mofo
October 12th, 2008, 10:35 PM
Loki has not implemented it yet so for all we know it is not a scam.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 13th, 2008, 05:13 AM
Fair enough. But has it been useful time? I mean, how many hours did ISA spend here?

Of what use have YOU been?


He's given Loki a secret to stop spam that hasn't even worked. That's not a contribution, that's a scam.

It won't work if nobody uses it, and nobody has.

You little shit...ask Goofy about the idea, you insufferably dishonest little fuck.

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

The Good Reverend Roger
October 13th, 2008, 05:14 AM
Loki has not implemented it yet so for all we know it is not a scam.

Why should Tsar care about little details like that? It's not like he's known for honesty, right?

Dr Goofy Mofo
October 13th, 2008, 05:20 AM
Rogers plan does work! I have seen it. It just needs somebody to do it! So Honestly according to the 2 things he should be minister. Heck We could eliminate all the spam with his help!

Tsar Phalanxia
October 13th, 2008, 09:16 AM
Of what use have YOU been?


Tag never contributed anything of material value, although we all felt he was the most awesome member of the forum. Material contributions != Respect

It won't work if nobody uses it, and nobody has.

Or if it doesn't exist.


You little shit...ask Goofy about the idea, you insufferably dishonest little fuck.

Aww, are you rumbled? Goofy doesn't know what it the idea is either you know.

rzm61
October 13th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Sounds like you have a problem. I spoke up THREE times, telling you how to deal with it, and each time you and Scikky ignored me, because you were having a tantrum.

So why the fuck would I tell you now? :icon_lol:


Ha ha, sounds like you're the one who has a problem and with getting IT.

[citation needed] means present proof for you claims. You have yet to do this. So looks like you're loosing. And cute at the thought of me having a 'tantrum'

I love your twisted reality. You should write screenplay.


Again, sounds like you have a problem. Your opinion has no value to me whatsoever...

Tee Hee, and same thing goes for you from me roger. :D

what with you guys constantly trying to get him fired.

Please know what you're talking about. I would never think about trying to get Loki fired. From what I can tell I am the only other person in the ministry other then you and Goofy who want him to stay.

I've talked to him on the phone over the weekend aboot all this and told him countless times to re-think his 'resgination.'

So again, know what you're talking about or you'll look like a fool.


Suits me. I have no problem bringing it up at random intervals, whenever you get pretentions of intellectual honesty.

Ha ha.
Coming from you it sounds like an oxymoron to me.

sudikics
October 13th, 2008, 01:42 PM
*sigh*

Well, well, don't we all seem to have a lot of reserved hatred?

I'm off to make two more thread on this, hope ya don't mind.

rzm61
October 13th, 2008, 01:47 PM
Two more threads about dealing with spam!?

THATS SPAM!

rzm61
October 13th, 2008, 01:50 PM
Here we go about my little butting heads with Roger.

We don't have any spambots at all over at PD. :D

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

Fuck! Spambots OWN this board. :icon_lol:

Okay, you're right. You offered a suggestion. However if you notice, it took you three posts till you even tried to help.

Why not just screen users before admitting them? You can ban by server, you know.

This is the only information I found yet about it. About banning by server, I don't know how to do that.

If you mean account activation before admitting them, we had that for awhile however I think only Admins can approve new accounts.

Well anyway I'm off to see if you offered more information or not.

Doubtful though, because after your 'helpful' post you posted 'Owned again :icon_lol:'


Edit:
I was right, that was the only example of (what you call help) 'help' you gave.

Dr Goofy Mofo
October 13th, 2008, 03:42 PM
I have the information and it does involve banning by server. It might only be and admin function that can be handed out.

rzm61
October 13th, 2008, 03:46 PM
I have the information and it does involve banning by server. It might only be and admin function that can be handed out.

Yeah.

Well if I knew how to do it and could do it, it would have already been done to the spambots.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 14th, 2008, 01:29 AM
Tag never contributed anything of material value, although we all felt he was the most awesome member of the forum. Material contributions != Respect



Or if it doesn't exist.



Aww, are you rumbled? Goofy doesn't know what it the idea is either you know.

Of course he does, because I told him. :icon_lol:

Idiot.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 14th, 2008, 01:30 AM
*sigh*

Well, well, don't we all seem to have a lot of reserved hatred?

I'm off to make two more thread on this, hope ya don't mind.

I am known in some circles as the high priest of hate.

It keeps me warm at night.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 14th, 2008, 01:32 AM
Ha ha, sounds like you're the one who has a problem and with getting IT.

[citation needed] means present proof for you claims. You have yet to do this. So looks like you're loosing. And cute at the thought of me having a 'tantrum'



So what? In the end, I have the method (as does Loki and Dr Goofy), AND I have a sizable ban list of spam servers, and you don't.

I will give that to Loki when he asks for it. Other than that, I have no interest in proving anything to you, RZM.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 14th, 2008, 01:35 AM
This is the only information I found yet about it. About banning by server, I don't know how to do that.



Sounds like you have a problem. I have given the idea to Loki, and I can give him a jump start with a huge database of servers to ban.

But only Loki. Nobody else, except for Matt, and only because he has done the right thing and consistently backed Loki.

sudikics
October 14th, 2008, 01:36 AM
For the record, Alice Shade recommends a subnet ban.

:D

The Good Reverend Roger
October 14th, 2008, 02:00 AM
For the record, Alice Shade recommends a subnet ban.

:D

For the record, if you can talk Loki into coming back, I'll give him the entire database.

But do what you like.

The Good Reverend Roger
October 14th, 2008, 02:04 AM
I will also give it to Dr Goofy, if he's made an admin (it's not much use to him, otherwise).

sudikics
October 14th, 2008, 03:07 AM
For the record, if you can talk Loki into coming back, I'll give him the entire database.

But do what you like.
Seeign how I haven't seen Loki log on, and any information on how to contact him has eluded me, I'm simply waiting for him to log on.

Loki
October 16th, 2008, 11:31 PM
I said I was away for the week - not for ever!

What?

The Good Reverend Roger
October 17th, 2008, 03:21 AM
I said I was away for the week - not for ever!

What?

I will send you the ban list from PD, edited to only include spambots.

You want it via PM or email?

Loki
October 17th, 2008, 03:18 PM
I will send you the ban list from PD, edited to only include spambots.

You want it via PM or email?

Nice one mate. Thanks.
Would you mind sending it to my email? The prussicacid one :D

Loki
October 17th, 2008, 03:28 PM
... and any information on how to contact him has eluded me...

sciki - sorry mate, I should have answered you yesterday but I missed it.

There are ways to contact me even when I'm not on-line. Number one being...Drum Roll... Ask someone!

The chances are that some folks on this site know how to send a message to some other folks. Some of them might know someone that has my cell-phone number :D

I'd post my cell # on the net but I've not had my lobotomy yet :icon_eek:

EDIT: Whoooo - poetic!

Agent J9
October 20th, 2008, 03:04 AM
You guys should start Screening members before allowing to post, 2) Disable all links in posts 3) If they are bots they are many things you can do, I dont have to name them all do I, 4) Ban certain keywords if they are posting similar messages!

sudikics
October 20th, 2008, 03:10 AM
You guys should start Screening members before allowing to post, 2) Disable all links in posts 3) If they are bots they are many things you can do, I dont have to name them all do I, 4) Ban certain keywords if they are posting similar messages!
Are you in any way related to Agent_J7?

Agent J9
October 20th, 2008, 03:12 AM
Are you in any way related to Agent_J7?

Yes, But that has Nothing to do with this Thread.

sudikics
October 20th, 2008, 03:45 AM
Yes, But that has Nothing to do with this Thread.
Of course, but I just thought it put your post in an interesting light.

/off-topic

Good points. Unfortunately, screening doesn't work too well in my experience (see posts on the "elitist fucks" at the Lifeboat). We do, hwoever, have a few ideas on how to stop the spammer, but we need Matt to enforce them.