08-20-2007, 08:09 AM

Well, since we've had two 40-year-old virgin spammers in the last 3 nights sending PMs out to people, I suggest we make new rules regarding who can and cannot Private Message. I think we should require a minimum of 25 posts before any member can use the Private Messaging feature. It would only have to be temporary until the spammer's mom kicks him out of her house. Does that sound reasonable?

08-20-2007, 08:47 AM

Sounds like a good idea, is it possible schweb?

08-20-2007, 08:50 AM

It should be possible, but we need to heavily consider any actions we would take. Remember, things like this rarely happen and I would hate to make any changes in the heat of the moment.

Disabling PM for new users is not necessarily a route I would like to take unless absolutely necessary. The first step would be to go with moderated registrations.

08-20-2007, 09:03 AM

I'm with schweb on this. I'm not one who believes every bad action requires a new rule. The old rules are working at the moment. While a bit annoying, this is hopefully a storm that will quickly pass.

08-20-2007, 09:15 AM

I would rather go with TC99,

Disable PM's by members under post count X.

I think the posts made before PM = 25, is a pretty good idea, would stick with that one, it's the least they can do, and I don't think spammers will first post 25 posts before getting into the PM section.

08-20-2007, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sproit

I would rather go with TC99,

Disable PM's by members under post count X.

I think the posts made before PM = 25, is a pretty good idea, would stick with that one, it's the least they can do, and I don't think spammers will first post 25 posts before getting into the PM section.

And for all those new users who receive help through PM? What would you say to them?

Every so often when this happens, there's people who want to take away privileges for new users. If we listened to them every time, you wouldn't have had a very enjoyable beginning here.

Just remember, it's easy to say take away X,Y, or Z when it doesn't affect you any longer.

08-20-2007, 09:27 AM

One forum I know of set it so no brand new user could post pictures or URL's for their first few posts. They were getting so much Spam it was getting out of control. That seemed to work there so far. Nothing was done with PM's that I know and the posting URL's and pictures was for brand new users. Most Spammer's seem to back off if they can't do their dirty work right away, at least from what I have seen.

08-20-2007, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by dtravis7

One forum I know of set it so no brand new user could post pictures or URL's for their first few posts. They were getting so much Spam it was getting out of control. That seemed to work there so far. Nothing was done with PM's that I know and the posting URL's and pictures was for brand new users. Most Spammer's seem to back off if they can't do their dirty work right away, at least from what I have seen.

Yes, dtravis excellent idea. I like it better than my idea.

How does this idea sound schweb?

08-20-2007, 09:33 AM

I think limiting PM's would be a bit draconian. I'm a new member, and I've contributed to the forums, albeit in a few posts so far.

More importantly i used the PM system to alert the mods of the spam rampage as some of it was quite sickening. I've received a fair few pms since in retaliation from the spammers and I still don't think limiting pms is a good idea. If this were applied to me at the time I couldn't have helped notify mods of the problem.

08-20-2007, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Desdemonica

I think limiting PM's would be a bit draconian. I'm a new member, and I've contributed to the forums, albeit in a few posts so far.

More importantly i used the PM system to alert the mods of the spam rampage as some of it was quite sickening. I've received a fair few pms since in retaliation from the spammers and I still don't think limiting pms is a good idea. If this were applied to me at the time I couldn't have helped notify mods of the problem.

Good point. I like dtravis' idea. What do you think of that?

08-20-2007, 09:36 AM

Again, I don't think at this point we should look at limiting anything. Let's just see what happens. Again, for how rarely this happens, I'd rather not punish the 99.9999% of innocent users.

08-20-2007, 09:36 AM

Why not just disable images in PMs altogether. If it were to have a link to the image instead of the image itself, you should be able to tell by the rest of the message if you want to look at the image.

08-20-2007, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by TheCustomer99

Good point. I like dtravis' idea. What do you think of that?

I think if we have to limit anything, limit pictures displaying and display the link. Of course it's easy to fool people with a url that seems benign.

I think for the short term we should weather the storm, kiddiots get bored easily when they are ignored.

Obviously, they are committing net abuse and can be reported to their ISP's and they can get kicked if their ISP's abuse team applies a LART well.

08-20-2007, 09:56 AM

im not sure about banning PM's but maybe somehow havinig them checked or scanned ? is that possible ?

08-20-2007, 10:06 AM

I think PMs should stay the way they are. This is an isolated incident, staff will deal with it somehow and why must we have crippled or no PMs at all because of some morons? They weren't here before and I'm sure they will be dealt with.

Sometimes you need, in a PM, to explain something with an image. So this can be very handy in certain situations.

So I hope our privileges will not be changed because of those morons that have targetted our forum.