[GNUz] Re: Spam on the [SFD] forum

[Rik Tindall]

Matt Oquist wrote:
 > Robert Schumann wrote:

>>All three of you now have admin privs.
>>
>Thx.
>  
>

Hi people, and thanks for sorting all this top-level stuff out, SFI+Robert.

I CC this to our two local lists (in order to draw a line under the 
issue and get moving again towards Software Freedom Day) - CLUG 
<http://clug.net.nz/index.php/EmailListFAQ> "there is no" Canterbury 
Linux Users Group <http://clug.net.nz>, and GNUz 
<http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/gnuz> "GNU & FSF issues, 
especially in Canterbury NZ" friendly to Freenix! <http://www.hackstop.org>.

>>I notice that Rik recently posted (perhaps it was still in the old
>>forums?) a response to Don Gould, who had indicated his willingness to
>>be a forum moderator, indicating that Rik was willing to vouch for Don.
>>
>>Now I don't know if Don is still mad at us after the complaints he sent
>>SFI, but he does seem like a fantastically enthusiastic person whom it
>>would be a pity to lose.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree here, but he sounds like he's made the decision to call it
>quits on SFD. :\
>  
>

Matt's formally correct, although CLUG's prominent new 'character' will 
probably be back - as a fulltime *nix user this time (we hope). His 
contribution may then be positive. We are uninterested if not.

Yes Robert, it was the old SFD forum, just before it came down. We have 
been devising ways of encouraging newcomers, to a fault (tolerance). I'd 
had enough second thoughts to suspend my endorsement, and in the end 
it's better to wait & see on this. We're currently having our first 
normal quiet day in weeks, having waved the light sabre blindingly close 
to Don's troll-morphing knees.

>>With a grand total of 2 posts on the forums we are clearly not short of
>>admins (lots of chiefs, only two indians...), but shall we invite Don to
>>be a moderator?
>>    
>>
>I'd rather let things lie the way they are for the moment. I think SFD
>is growing OK (we have 104 registrations now!), and maybe Don will
>come back after we get our act together a bit better, and after he
>gets some other projects out of his way.
>  
>

Fair and true. With UK-US-NZ monitoring, we have many timezones covered 
now for keeping the forum clean. We should find reps from other zones 
(e.g. Perth?), if we need them. But thanks Don, for adding to the weight 
for action.

>>PS - I don't know what admin settings are required on phpBB to be most
>>secure against spam - and I'm not sure what settings were used on the
>>previous forum that proved so ineffective.  Do we just cross our fingers
>>and hope?
>>    
>>
><snip guruspeak; no.. I've put it back in:>
>
"I think the inclusion of the verification code (or whatever it is when 
a human has to read those text-graphics that prevent automatic 
registrations) is a major step in the right direction. In fact, I hope 
it's a sufficient step all by itself. Only a couple of the previous 
SPAMmers bothered to post more than once as the same user, so manual 
registrations probably aren't worth it."

>--matt
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>SoftwareFreedomDay.org :
>   Celebrating Free and Open Source Software in Your Community
>info AT softwarefreedomday.org
>http://softwarefreedomday.org/
>
>SFD Sponsors:
>http://canonical.com
>http://www.dkuug.dk
>http://ibm.com
>  
>

As people can see, the SFD forum spam is now being combatted.

We'd be happy for any pointers though. - Steve?

pp SFD teams Christchurch & World

-- 
Rik Tindall