Bulkley wrote:The better spam checkers, such as stopforumspam, don't blacklist on the basis of IP alone. They use a combination of IP, email address and user name. Their database is built on confirmed complaints and is very reliable.
Hopefully it works as well as it sounds. What about the other one? Honeypot?
And rupeshforu? According to Mez, he was flagged as a spammer, because of his service provider, not because his name was entered onto a list of spammers.
Hi there,
Just had a little look into why you're being flagged as a spammer.
You're currently using a Dynamic IP handed out from Vodafone India.
This IP has previously been caught being used by an automatic spam-bot (it got caught in what is known as a honeypot).
This will only affect registration or changing your profile while you are still on that IP address.
I believe this incident was the day after the change was implemented.
arochester wrote:There is a mis-quote wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln
You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time.
The issue is not about pleasing anyone. It is a case of cost-benefit analysis. The most benefit with the least drawback. Or as you put it:
Sometimes, general measures are for the good of the majority and will catch out some innocent individuals. Does that mean the general measures should not be put in place?
The question then is; Does the benefit of removing a great amount of spam (but not all) out-weigh the disadvantage of a smaller number of potential members not being able to register?
That of course will be a point of debate between members with different views. For my part, I am reminded of another famous quote.
I would rather have a hundred criminals go free than one innocent person go to prison.
I know many of the board's members will not understand my concern. Because they live in Europe and North America, they do not know what is like to be the victim of such measures. Believe me, it is very frustrating. As much as I would like to see the spam quashed, I do not like the idea of one potential new member being denied for every ten, twenty or hundred spammers denied. Simply put, my position on the scale of cost-benefit analysis is influenced by my experience.
On balance are people happy or unhappy with direction of the changes?
To reiterate what I stated in an earlier post, my intention was not to attack the mighty Mez, campaign for the right of spammers or to make myself look good. I simply want members to be aware of a potential (and very likely) problem that I believe deserves consideration. My concern is for the health and future of the board. Both for current and future members. (And potential future members.)