vB.org hit by spammers!

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by kh99

I didn't accuse you, I asked.

In a accusatory, dismissive fashion. Ascribing motives that didn't and don't exist.

I'm pretty sure I deleted parts of your response or else I would have done that.

You didn't, but that's perfectly okay like it is.

I told you that the people who handle these things are aware of the issues. I guess it's "dismissive" if they don't immediately implement whatever you suggest?

Once again, accusatory tone, dismissive and ascribing a motive that doesn't exist.

In any case, I have my own opinion and I disagree that spam here is a problem.

That's not what matters though, it's the customer's perception. And clearly, reading the thread, it's not just me who is annoyed with the spam.

--------------- Added [DATE]1354302795[/DATE] at [TIME]1354302795[/TIME] ---------------

Originally Posted by kh99

ETA: You've gone off the point and started attacking me - that doesn't help make you point.

Nonsense, I have merely been stating the facts of what's happened here. There's no attack. I've been quite respectful and polite.

If anyone's been attacked, it's me.

[kh99]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

Nonsense, I have merely been stating the facts of what's happened here. There's no attack.

If anyone's been attacked, it's me.

OK, I apologize if you feel you've been attacked. It really was just curiosity.

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by kh99

OK, I apologize if you feel you've been attacked. It really was just curiosity.

I have been respectful and polite kh... I like you and all the staff here. I didn't mean to seem disrespectful or unpleasant. I never gave you hell - I gave you the truth and you thought it was hell!

But I get the impression, however inaccurate it may be, that clearly you underestimate the annoyance of the spam problem here, and value your own time more than mine and that of the membership. It just seems there's a attitude here to be dismissive of complaints and suggestions about the site. That's my perception, but many others share it.

[BirdOPrey5]

Max-when your site starts getting the traffic vBulletin.org does you will likely find you have changed your goal of stopping 100% of spam as it is unachievable.

Your site can only have a 100% success rate because relatively few people target it.

What works for you is good for you but it is not the end all answer to stop all spam.

You can't stop human spammers without stopping legitimate human traffic.

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5

Max-when your site starts getting the traffic vBulletin.org does you will likely find you have changed your goal of stopping 100% of spam as it is unachievable.

Your site can only have a 100% success rate because relatively few people target it.

What works for you is good for you but it is not the end all answer to stop all spam.

You can't stop human spammers without stopping legitimate human traffic.

Goals don't change because they are difficult or impossible. If that were true, we would have never made the moon landings. On the contrary, the bar should actually be raised due to difficulty, not lowered.

I get targeted daily, like most everyone else. 100s of attempts a day. There's NEW boards out there, NO posts yet, getting spammed. Happens all the time.

What works for you is good for you but it is not the end all answer to stop all spam.

I agree and never made any such assertion. Or even thought it, or even suggested it.

I try to help others and don't mind admitting I'm not all that good at it. But I try.

[Paul M]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

It stops them completely and redirects them off the site, and places the IP used in MU. I'm down to catching only 20 or so a day now with it.

No, it does not stop them completely, stop making wild claims.

You just contradict yourself.
If you're "down to 20" then they havent stopped.

As to the rest, you have no idea what we do or do not do about spammers here, and to be blunt, its none of your business, all you need to know is they get deleted, and we try other options as required.

Since this thread is 75% arguments, closed.