PM Restrictions

Titch89

What's to stop someone signing up, posting a couple hundred of times and then spamming?

d123

Titch89 wrote: »

What's to stop someone signing up, posting a couple hundred of times and then spamming?

other than the time it would entail to post 200 times, probably nothing.

elkay115

LimeLight wrote: »

Can't you put people with say less than 50 posts on a 10 minute gap, or like on another forum, not allow pm's until about 150 posts.

Why should people with lower post counts be restricted when others aren't? Just because some people don't post a lot doesn't mean they aren't genuine people.

Alfie_E

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

10 MINUTES??? Holy hell...

I worry that it’s going to push some people to start communicating with others in a more direct manner off-site, when they really wanted to keep all their communication through MSE.

Belnahua wrote: »

Many websites seem to be able to do it adequately, BBC iplayer, Google, Youtube, CBS, Fox, CNN, they all seem to be able to identify UK users ok.

There’s the idea of adding a geolocation protocol to the Internet, to give location down to the street address. Until such madness were fully implemented in the UK, using IP addresses to divine location will be fraught with difficulties. That proposed protocol concedes there will be times when even it doesn’t work. What’s ‘adequate’? Websites that try to guess location from IP addresses just put up with the collateral damage. There have been a number of posters on MSE who’ve said they can’t access the BBC’s iPlayer. There’s one on-line computer retailer whom I’ve bought from in the past but now can’t use, as their web server completely refuses to communicate with any person it believes is outside the UK.

Artofdookie

Never had any spam

jmarko

i like the idea of getting 'pm' rights or 'enhanced pm' rights once you've reached a certain post count.

maybe this would be a good compromise:

0-200 posts - may send pm's but with a maximum of one message to one recipient, only once every 10 minutes and with storage of a maximum of 10 messages.

201-1000 posts - no time restriction on pm's, no more than 5 recipients, pm-box size of 50.

1000 posts+ - no time restrictions, no recipient restrictions, pm-box size of 100.

something like that?

danny69

Users with a high post count seem to want restrictions so that only the big posters get the benefits. The people opposing the restrictions are the ones who hardly post. I would say that, though, as I have hardly posted.....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

ceridwen

I hate spammers too and have had a couple of PM's recently that were spam - rather than being from one of my virtual friends. Annoying having spammers clogging up my letterbox - as its only a pretty small letterbox. I find that a PM letterbox only capable of holding 50 PM's is constantly having to get cleared out by me - to ensure room for any incoming PMs from my friends.

So - I aint so concerned about the spammers - though I would prefer them to be kept out of the way if possible. But I just want some more "space" in my "letterbox" in case spammers take up a bit of space I need for PMs from my friends - until I get the chance to delete these spammers.

Not keen on the 10 minute gap between PMs or the only able to send to one person at a time - that would be a hassle to me noticeably often.

ceridwen

Incisor

jmarko wrote: »

... maybe this would be a good compromise:

0-200 posts - may send pm's but with a maximum of one message to one recipient, only once every 10 minutes and with storage of a maximum of 10 messages.

201-1000 posts - no time restriction on pm's, no more than 5 recipients, pm-box size of 50.

1000 posts+ - no time restrictions, no recipient restrictions, pm-box size of 100.

something like that?

Storage max would be irrelevant to spamming, I would have thought? I don't think that if you clear out your sent mail it would result in the mail being taken out of the recipients in box if it hadn't been read. All the spammers need to do is add something to their script to clear their pm-box?

Incisor

danny69 wrote: »

Users with a high post count seem to want restrictions so that only the big posters get the benefits. The people opposing the restrictions are the ones who hardly post. I would say that, though, as I have hardly posted.....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Not at all. I see no reason for newbies who are genuine to get less than people who have been around a while or have a high post count. It's just that there is a higher percentage of spammers amongst newbies unfortunately.