• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Fixed Spam Cleaner Doesn't Delete Soft Deleted Posts

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
#3
Hmm I'm steering more towards a bug.

I would have expected the spam cleaner to behave the way it advertises.

If you're using the spam cleaner on a user and you ask it to permanently delete messages then there shouldn't be any exceptions to that.
 

Biker

Well-known member
#4
Hmm I'm steering more towards a bug.

I would have expected the spam cleaner to behave the way it advertises.

If you're using the spam cleaner on a user and you ask it to permanently delete messages then there shouldn't be any exceptions to that.
Agreed.
 

Vincent

Well-known member
#6
Hmm I'm steering more towards a bug.

I would have expected the spam cleaner to behave the way it advertises.

If you're using the spam cleaner on a user and you ask it to permanently delete messages then there shouldn't be any exceptions to that.
But perhaps the user has content that was soft deleted because it is needed as proof or needs to be made public someday.
 

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
#8
Anyway. The fix is relatively simple to cater for both needs.

In addition to the permanently delete box there should be a checkbox that is on by default that is labelled "delete already soft deleted posts".
 

Kim

Well-known member
#9
Agreed, it is annoying to have to permanently delete after asking for that option.

I have also notice that when the spammer has more than 1 other alias, the page freezes after deleting the 2nd one, and you have to then find another spam post by that 2nd or 3rd alias to kill off only another 2, then so on and so on.
 

Sador

Well-known member
#10
Agreed, this annoyed me as well.

It doesn't seem to register a user with only soft-deleted posts / threads as a spammer either, so it doesn't seem to use any of the other tools (like deleting the user) on him too.
 

Mike

XenForo developer
Staff member
#11
I think the code was probably assuming the soft delete method was being used, to prevent doing work twice. But obviously that's not the only option, so I've just removed that condition.