Phil Parkin (11/26/2015)

---

TomThomson (11/25/2015)

---

Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/25/2015)

---

Alvin Ramard (11/25/2015)

---

Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/25/2015)

---

The spam problem is tough. Believe me, no matter what we do, people will find ways around it. Much of the spam isn't a user clicking and posting like you. There are automated scripts that post, and avoid these forms. The least performance impact-ive way is to have a process that removes posts after they appear. Often posts are removed by the time you've reported a few.

I am trying to get other changes, but I don't have the ability to force this.

You could avoid a lot of spam if you blocked the spammers account when you remove the spam post(s).

we do this. However this doesn't always work. As I have noted in the past, there is probably some security hole that allows post to continue to be posted.

But you manage to block Celko effectively - although he can post, when he does the post doesn't actually appear anywhere because it doesn't exist (although if it was to a thread I'm subscribed to, I get the "new post" message). So why are you (not you individually, but the company) hammering JC harder than you hammer the spammer? I know JC's sometimes an offensive pain. but he's nowhere near as offensive or as painful as the typical spammer.

I agree with this. But from Steve's message, the implication is that there is a 'back-door' somewhere, which allows spammers to post while avoiding validation checks. If true, this is a massive security hole and I'd assume that resources are being thrown at this.