i wonder if it is technically possible to give the moderators the
capability to automatically (no extra work) mark orphaned stubs of
spam as such in the nntp fora…
example: i just read a posting in the nntp version of the chit-chat
forum touting another Linux Noobie site, it was spam and went over to
the web side to ‘report’ it…though it was only about an hour old it
had already been pulled (yipee!) but it would be nice if i had seen
the pulled notice in the thread…
hmmm…since Novell is operating the nntp server, why not ‘teach’ the
moderator software to automaticall pull the nntp version along with
the web version? (that may not be technically possible, i don’t
know…heck, neither may be possible, within…)
usually we delete both sides (which in fact is not necessary: Deleting the message on the NNTP side deletes it on the web, too). If we miss a spam message on the NNTP side, please kick our butts via PM. It’s our fault then.
>> If we miss a spam message on the NNTP side, please kick our butts
>> via PM. It’s our fault then.
> i was not kicking, instead i was attempting to make a helpful
> suggestion…sorry you missed that.
> i had no idea mods already had the capability to pull both sides…
> since true that pulling the nntp side auto-pulls the web side, then it
> seems easy to teach all mods to do it that way…only…or just
> block/remove the button to remove the web side…
Mostly we work web side. Not all the mods are up to speed with nntp
We do try and get all the nntp stuff. What tends to happen is the post gets
nuked web side and is waiting for a nntp mod to do the business there.
Thanks for keep us on our toes. We have been swamped with spam from China
> Mostly we work web side. Not all the mods are up to speed with nntp
> We do try and get all the nntp stuff. What tends to happen is the post gets
> nuked web side and is waiting for a nntp mod to do the business there.
just thinking out loud, wouldn’t it be nice if you could just click a
button and all the stuff needed to pull it from the web and nntp side
would be one click and done…
> Thanks for keep us on our toes.
really, i was not trying to keep anyone on their toes…i think you
guys usually do a good job generally and a fantastic job on the spam!
again, i mention my suggestion was to improve the forum without adding
to your workload (via a one click solution—which, i know (from
previous Kim postings) may not be technically possible, or wise…
> We have been swamped with spam from China ATM
sorry to hear that! but, with their billions i think we should
expect to see their’s dwarf the small stream of hundreds of millions
from the Great Spam Houses of yesteryear, wait and see…
but, if they offer high quality, Linux powered personal products for
men?? maybe we should let those in, huh?
that would be nice, but its not the case. To delete NNTP requires one have NNTP running (even if one does not use it regularly) . I set it up. I tried it. I tested it. I hated it. I removed it. What can I say? I did give it a try.
So while I can clean up the web side, I so dislike NNTP that I can do the WEB side clean up, but the work required for the NNTP clean up leaves a strong (bad) taste in my mouth, and I don’t like to do it.
palladium wrote, On 11/02/2009 03:39 PM:
> like i said: “wouldn’t it be nice if . . .” it was a one button
> click, done…
We’ll see what Kim says, but I assume the problem is the fact we are using VBulletin, and if we start coding bells and whistles to it, the next regular VBulletin upgrade will break it.
Again, if you find we missed some spam on either side of the forums, drop us a message. We appreciate any help from forum members, really.
Answer: It’s possible if it’s meant to be helpful on their debut post, and it would be better than ranting (IMH and most grovelling O that is). Newly arrived-from-windows users have been known to post some strange items - I’m sure you may have noticed some.
I did rather assume it was the first post marker that raised your suspicions, and so I avoided the word “definitely”. I hear tell, it’s better to be vaguely right than specifically wrong.