Spambots and how to deal with them

[Haruka]

That wouldn't solve the problem at all since bots can also spam the existant threads instead of creating new ones.

[Droolie]

The spambots all have hostname [addres].broad.fz.fj.dynamic.163data.com.cn. Banning that should be enough to temporarily get rid of them. ^^
The fate of the bots is hUMCH's hands now - or anyone who can do this.
EDIT -> Actually, "163data.com.cn" in general should be banned. I looked it up, and its entire reason for existence seems to be spam.

[Robotic Teensie]

That wouldn't solve the problem at all since bots can also spam the existant threads instead of creating new ones.

Haruka, it wouldn't end all spam completely, but it would help. It would reduce the problem, and that would be good. Even though bots could still make spammy posts they would not be able to completely flood the forum with spam threads, pushing legitimate threads out of sight. And IMO, a spam thread is even more annoying than a spam post. Eliminating the bots' ability to create spam threads is a good thing.

[Haruka]

Well, the solution could work for small scaled forums, but what about RPC where there are new members registering everyday, and they aren't necessairly bots at all? Just saying since it would be a hell of a work to activate many accounts everyday.

[Robotic Teensie]

Err... what? What solution are you referring to? This one?

I'm not entirely sure how spambots pick forums, but perhaps we could try something where, for a week or two, an administrator has to manually activate new members' accounts? Maybe that will give the forum a certain influence over the bots, making it known as a board not worth wasting spambots on.

[Haruka]

Yes, that one.

[Master]

Robotic Teensie suggested we have a thread creation limit of about 5 per day, this would reduce the damage both human and bot spammers could do, seeing as the likelihood of a genuine member making 5 new threads in a day is rather low, as opposed to a spammer, who'd probably do so.
The other problem we have however, is that there is more than one Spambot, even with such a limit, they could still accumulate a disruptive amount of threads.

[GNineify]

Eh, I'm still for the replacement of the Captcha with something much harder for bots to pass.

[Snagglebee]

Ehh, if the captcha system will be replaced, please don't the one from RyanAir.

[Master]

It appears the major cleanup is underway, here's hoping that the bots are beaten in a way that prohibits their further posting.

[Cairnie]

Trying to, except these are coming back like foxes come back to people's gardens - just trashing the place CONSTANTLY.

[Master]

Is it possible to ban them outright and prevent them from posting?

[Cairnie]

I can ban them yes (which I've been doing), but only Admins can delete them permanently from the memberlist.

[Master]

Ah, alright.
Not exactly the right place to ask, but how was the convention?
It seems the following bots are still causing problems:
004pwuv8x
028oned6g
703mxsq8v
436jcan2w
869rrlc6h
618rycb6l
046jcxl0h
690taxj8f
456rnau5g
187ohjw8f
922wppm9y

[Shrooblord]

It looks like they all follow the pattern of three numbers, four letters, one number and one more letter. Maybe we can put a warning flag on anyone who registers with such usernames, so we can find the bots before they cause too much trouble?

[Master]

It seems that the situation is resolved, they've been removed from the memberlist.

[Haruka]

Hunch came this morning and took care of them.

[Rulez]

It looks like they all follow the pattern of three numbers, four letters, one number and one more letter. Maybe we can put a warning flag on anyone who registers with such usernames, so we can find the bots before they cause too much trouble?

What if an actual person wanted a username like 696shit6f or 000FART0Z?

By the way

Hunch came this morning [...]

[Haruka]

Uhm, what did I do wrong? I might be missing something.

[Rulez]

You did nothing wrong, but your statement may also suggest that Hunch ejaculated this morning, i.e. he masturbated and finished.