Stop Spammer

[SD-X]

Correct, but if the route is XX.XX.YY.* and you banned XX.XX.XX.* then they will get through. Are you sure the third set matches despite the ban? If so then something is wrong with your forum's ban system.

[bugstomper]

if I ban XX.Xx.XX.* someone with XX.XX.XX.* shouldn't be turning up in my spam filter, should they?

I've seen similar, which turned out to be a result of spammers using not very good proxies to hide their real ip addresses. SMF figures out their real ip address in what it shows in their profile and when enforcing a ban, but displays the proxy address next to their messages. It's confusing and I don't know a good solution, but here is a thread in the SMF forums that contains some of the technical details in a reply near the end of the thread: IP detection behind a reverse proxy

I think your best bet is to do what Snoopy says he does and use the Anti-Spam Questions mod (or the built in feature for that in SMF 2.0) along with Stop Spammer and httpBL mods. Most of those spammers I have seen that are behind proxies are bots that are stopped cold by Anti-Spam Questions.

[snoopy_virtual]

Honestly, I'm starting to think it's useless to ban them at all if they can still register.

I arrived to that conclusion 2 years ago and stopped using the ban system completely.

Ban as XX.XX.*.* and not XX.XX.XX.* because otherwise you are not getting the full route

Using that system you can ban half a country if you are not careful.

[SD-X]

Honestly, I'm starting to think it's useless to ban them at all if they can still register.

I arrived to that conclusion 2 years ago and stopped using the ban system completely.

Ban as XX.XX.*.* and not XX.XX.XX.* because otherwise you are not getting the full route

Using that system you can ban half a country if you are not careful.

Well if the bots are matching that same route every time with different IP's in the last one or two sets then it's usually not an issue because it shows it's a network route instead of one leased by IP via an ISP. For example, the annoying bot network that uses 109.230.*.* stupidly uses that same network route every time, making it obvious that it's owned by a spammer itself and not an ISP since it never changes, but yes, as you said, being careful is always a good idea.

[snoopy_virtual]

For example banning 109.230.*.* you will ban half of Iran and other parts of the middle East.

Are you saying all the people in those countries are ALL OF THEM spammers?

That for example is one of the reasons why mods Forum Firewall and bad-behavior are not compatible with my mods Stop Spammer and httpBL. I have friends in a lot of countries around the world and I have always considered there are good and bad people in all those countries. I am not American and of course I don't think all "non-American" people are suspicious (as those other mods do).

I also had to design my mods to work properly in a lot of different forums, and not only in small forums visited only by a few people from the same country with just a couple of things in common (like for example a small forum of Americans interested in a particular kind of cars) but all possible kinds of forums in the world.

(Of course another reason why mods Forum Firewall and bad-behavior are not compatible with my mods is because they were designed like that on purpose, but that's another story ...  )

[snoopy_virtual]

For example banning 109.230.*.* you will ban half of Iran and other parts of the middle East.

Doing a better search I have found also some parts of Ontario (Canada) use that IP range as well.

I could add here a funny commentary about that, but I know a particular lady from Canada that could bite me if I do. So I better don't. (For those who know it has something to do with balloons ...  ).

[SD-X]

Hahaha...bad boy Snoopy!

[SilverLining]

@SugarD-X, yes, I'm sure. I've even had cases where a completely identical blocked ip has registered several days in a row.

@bugstomper, thanks for the info. I think the techy stuff will go a bit above my head but at least I know I'm not mad and imagining it, ha! Too bad there's no solution though...

@snoopy_virtual, all right, thanks for the info. That just sucks, I wonder why they even include a ban system if it doesn't work. Back to rejecting 30-40 fake accounts per day then I guess. I don't even have 30-40 actual members, lol! Oh, the things we do for our forums. As a fellow non-American, I do appreciate you designing your mods for an international audience though! =)


Also: Omg, I actually recognize that IP address. I feel like such a techy geek! *proud* It's like getting some obscure movie reference for the first time.

[snoopy_virtual]

Too bad there's no solution though...

Of course there is a solution, and bugstomper just told you:

I think your best bet is to do what Snoopy says he does and use the Anti-Spam Questions mod (or the built in feature for that in SMF 2.0) along with Stop Spammer and httpBL mods. Most of those spammers I have seen that are behind proxies are bots that are stopped cold by Anti-Spam Questions.

Have you read the tutorial I was suggesting?

http://www.snoopyvirtualstudio.com/tutoriales/index.php?estudio=httpBL_2;language=english

Back to rejecting 30-40 fake accounts per day then I guess.

Not at all. I administer 8 different forums just now and the last time I had to reject one fake account was last October (if I remember properly).

[SilverLining]

I've had bad luck with the security questions in the past, but I'll try it again I guess. I guess my prospective members just didn't know what to answer And I'll try the other mod you mentioned too. Thanks again.

[snoopy_virtual]

I've had bad luck with the security questions in the past, but I'll try it again I guess. I guess my prospective members just didn't know what to answer

Take a look for example at what I did in this forum:

http://www.snoopyvirtualstudio.com/tom-keenan-fans-club/smf/index.php?action=register

Note the big (green over black) sign I have put underneath the Anti-Spam Question.

That forum is dedicated to a famous country singer who died a few years ago when he was already very old, so most of his fans are very old people with very few computer knowledge and none of them had any trouble signing for an account.

[bugstomper]

I've had bad luck with the security questions in the past

You can make it as simple as possible and it will be enough to stop a bot because the bot does not understand anything at all. A question like "Please type the four letter word beginning with f, Plain as the nose on your ____" or "Type the five letter word beginning with n and ending with t  that is the opposite of day" or "Type the color of the sky, four letters beginning with b"

The question really can be that easy and a bot still will not get it. Some bots will insert "yes" or "no" into a box, so don't ask any yes or no questions. And a few might look for arithmetic expressions, so "1+1=" might not be the best choice. But anything that you make up will not be in the repertoire of a bot.

Of course, if you want to go all out, here is my favorite of all time, a real CAPTCHA from a science oriented forum

[snoopy_virtual]

Of course, if you want to go all out, here is my favorite of all time, a real CAPTCHA from a science oriented forum

But that's too easy. A = 3

[bugstomper]

But that's too easy. A = 3

It looks like you forgot to multiply by the constant coefficients of x when you did the chain rule. The answer is 14. I've never see a spam bot that got the chain rule right either

[snoopy_virtual]

What you're talking about:

I cannot write it properly here because there is no Latex, but let's just write "pi" like "n" and see if I can write it more or less in a way that can be understood:

A = d/dx [7 * sin (6 * x) + 4 * cos (7 * x + n / 2)] | _x=2n =
   = 7 * d/dx [sin (6 * x)] + 4 * d/dx [cos (7 * x + n / 2)] | _x=2n =
   = 7 *     cos (6 * x)      -  4 *      sin (7 * x + n / 2) | _x=2n

Now. When x=2n we have:

A =  7 * cos (12 * n) -  4 * sin (14 * n + n / 2)

But  cos (12 * n) = 1  because 12 times pi is the same than 6 full circles of 360º each so:
cos (12 * n) = cos (6 * 360º) = cos (0º) = 1

And for the same reason:
sin (14 * n + n / 2) = sin (n / 2) = sin (90º) = 1

So we have:

A =  7 * 1 -  4 * 1 = 7 - 4 = 3
QED
 

[butchs]

It looks like you forgot to multiply by the constant coefficients of x when you did the chain rule. The answer is 14. I've never see a spam bot that got the chain rule right either

Awe, Snoopy is not a spammer.  Or is he?? 

[busterone]

He he.   
I would fail myself.  I haven't had to do any higher mathematics for about 30 years now. I forgot most of it since my school years. I never needed it in the real world, so it slipped right away. 

[bugstomper]

A = d/dx [7 * sin (6 * x) + 4 * cos (7 * x + n / 2)] | _x=2n =
   = 7 * d/dx [sin (6 * x)] + 4 * d/dx [cos (7 * x + n / 2)] | _x=2n =

Yes, I did guess exactly where your error was. The chain rule says

  d u(v(x)) / dx =  (du/dv) * (dv/dx)

Applying that to the derivative of sin(6x)

let f(x) = sin(6x)
let u(v) = sin(v)
let v(x) = 6x

so f(x) = u(v(x))

du(v)/dv = d(sin(v))/dv = cos(v)
dv(x)/dx = d(6x)/dx = 6

By the chain rule
  d(sin(6x))/dx
= df(x)/dx  = du/dv * dv/dx
= cos(v) * 6
= cos(6x) * 6
= 6*cos(6x)

You missed a similar factor of 7 in the derivative of cos(7x+pi/2)

So the answer comes out to be 6*7 - 7*4 instead of 7 - 4

[snoopy_virtual]

You are right.

I did the calculation in my head too quickly when I saw it was so easy and did it wrong.

Actually when I was writing it there trying to explain it I had the feeling it was wrong, but it's difficult to read maths properly without proper formatting, so a minute ago I went to look for a pen and paper (to do it properly) and just found out the answer was 14 almost at the same time I saw there was a new message here. 

[snoopy_virtual]

He he.   
I would fail myself.  I haven't had to do any higher mathematics for about 30 years now. I forgot most of it since my school years. I never needed it in the real world, so it slipped right away. 

Cammon, you call that "higher mathematics"? That's what we used to do at school when I was 14. You should see then what we used to do in the last year of the University. 

Of course the names we were using were different. For example I have never called that "chain rule" but "la derivada de una función de función" (the derivative of a function of a function). The result is the same though.