News:

Want to get involved in developing SMF, then why not lend a hand on our github!

Main Menu

Spam Blitzkrieg Attack!!!

Started by lifeofmessiah, June 19, 2012, 09:38:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

lifeofmessiah

Last night, I got hit by what I assume was the same person that used three different user names and posted somewhere around 4000 spam posts before I had a chance to manually remove their membership and ban them.  Now I have to remove all posts, but I want to know if there is a faster way to remove the posts besides the standard bulk way of checking all posts from the thread page and deleting them.  200 pages of posts is a lot to remove.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Arantor

You could have done so when deleting their account.

What you might want to do is create a new account, re-attribute the posts to the new account then delete the account (and select 'delete all their posts') to remove everything.

lifeofmessiah

deleting an account does not delete posts made by that account unfortunately, though that would be a nice solution, because after banning them, I deleted them, but the posts are still there.  Made a little workaround by just increasing the amount of threads and posts viewable on one page.  it's easing the process a bit, but still have somewhere around 100 pages now.

Arantor

-sigh- As I said, you have to actually select it as an option when deleting the account. It's right there as an option when you go to the account's profile and select delete this account.

MrPhil

SMF is lacking a means to erase all posts/topics by a member when banning them. It's possible to erase all when deleting the member -- is it possible to do this when banning?

The objective is to end up with a banned user (to reduce the chances of them coming back) while getting rid of all their spam. Can it be done in current SMF?

Arantor

I believe there's a mod for it.

Mostly because the ban system isn't designed to cope with the scenario you're describing, and why I avoid it like the plague because it's not particularly efficient (and will be even worse with IPv6)

Chalky


Advertisement: