XF 2.2 Automatic Rejection of SFS above certain values

Steve Freides

Active member
When I see a pending membership in our group that StopForumSpam has flagged with, e.g., over 1000 reports of the email, I reject it.

Is there a way, and if so please tell me where in the ACP, to setup something like this? I have lately been getting requests to join from people with over 1000, sometimes over 10,000, reports of their email address - I have no need to see these and would like to reject them automatically.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

-S-
 

JRobert

Active member
The options in the ACP "Spam management" section don't work for what you want? There is a "Reject registrations when this many warning flags are detected:" option.
 

Steve Freides

Active member
What am I missing here? People with a thousand email reports show up in my moderation queue.

Thanks.

-S-
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-10-27 at 4.30.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-10-27 at 4.30.09 PM.png
    113.1 KB · Views: 7

Tracy Perry

Well-known member
ACP->Options->Spam Management
If they have 2 listings (don't care if it's email/IP, name/IP or name/email) that's more than I will allow. I figure if any one is listed more than my allowance, odds are they are a spammer. If they aren't and want to join, they can use the Contact link.

Screen Shot 2022-10-27 at 3.42.59 PM.png
 

Steve Freides

Active member
ACP->Options->Spam Management
If they have 2 listings (don't care if it's email/IP, name/IP or name/email) that's more than I will allow. I figure if any one is listed more than my allowance, odds are they are a spammer. If they aren't and want to join, they can use the Contact link.
What I don't understand is why someone whose email has been reported 1k times still shows up in my moderation queue - that's the reason for my asking here.

Thanks.

-S-
 

Tracy Perry

Well-known member
What I don't understand is why someone whose email has been reported 1k times still shows up in my moderation queue - that's the reason for my asking here.

Thanks.

-S-
Doesn't matter if they show up a MILLION times... if you are moderating based upon simply one indicator... they are GOING to go into your moderation queue. You are telling it that any 1 of the 3 fields are valid to put them into moderation.
You are telling the spam process that only to reject when ALL 3 are included... and usually the main 2 indicators are IP and email. That's why I reject on 2 as usually email & IP are both listed.
 

Steve Freides

Active member
@Tracy Perry, thank you - the descriptions in the ACP just, for whatever reason, never connected with me about how the process actually works.

I changed "Reject registrations when this many warning flags are detected:" from 3 to 2 and we'll see how that works.

I appreciate your time in explaining, thanks again.

-S-
 

Tracy Perry

Well-known member
If you have it as moderate on 1 and reject on 2, you should be pretty good. Generally I've found that the spammers have at least 2, rarely 3.
And if the IP is in the list (which could be possible if using an ISP that reuses IP's for different clients) would be a good solution. In fact, I've changed mine to that also as it was not something I really thought about.
 

Tracy Perry

Well-known member
I just wish we could specify which elements to match. It gets annoying after awhile having common names like "John" (random example) go into moderation because of only a name match.
Yep, that is one of the weaknesses in the current implementation. It would really be nice to be able to base it simply on IP and email address.
 

Steve Freides

Active member
I just wish we could specify which elements to match. It gets annoying after awhile having common names like "John" (random example) go into moderation because of only a name match.
I maintain a group called "post approval required because of something at signup" and whenever something appears in the moderation queue like the example you gave, I will edit it and set that flag and then approve it. Belt and suspenders, as they say. :) Most of those never come back and try to post, I've found, for what that's worth.

-S-
 
Top