Check out the SMF Function DB!
Started by M-DVD, December 31, 2008, 07:31:43 AM
Quote from: EL34xyz on February 09, 2010, 07:28:21 AMSnoop,I don't care about false positives, you are missing the whole gist of how this bug operates.And yes partial names are reported if that name is part of another nameThat does not matter, this is the bug below.This spam mod deletes the false positives membersThe spam mod should not delete these false positive members automatically!The is_activated status in the SMF database is changed from 1 to a 3 on these false positive members.Do you understand this now?Look at this screen shot
QuoteEL34xyz. Why are you checking every member all the time?
QuotePersonally, I even if there is NOT an error with the DB connection, I don't want it to automatically de-activate someone because their username appears in the SFS database. The chance of a name false-positive is fairly good, and I don't expect a LOOK AT THIS EXISTING MEMBER to suddenly de-activate them until I say so.
Quote from: Nerd3D on February 09, 2010, 09:55:03 AMSnoopy, glad to see they finally got you access to the mod's main page.I love the mod the way it is. I don't need to check and recheck my members all the time. I only kick an established member if they actually do spam. If their name comes up in a black list after they are registered and they aren't spamming me I don't really care.
Quote from: busterone on February 09, 2010, 10:05:36 AMSnoopy, you did a fantastic job explaining the mod. I am glad they have you on the page as co-author now. Thanks for all the hard work. This mod has been a fantastic resource for me since it's creation.
Quote from: smartdeviceresource on February 09, 2010, 09:36:55 PMsnoopy_virtual Gracia para 2.3.7 I just uninstalled 2.3.6 installed 2.3.7 and it works great (I attempted Registration with a red email from the stopforumspam site and it did as it should )SMF 2.0 RC 2However one question, Package manager did not see this update, is that because I happened upon the topic today, before my package manager was able to see the new version, did SMF forget (or just has yet to) to add the update to the (i'm guessing it's an) XML file with the latest versions? or is this a bug and many users may not see the update, which for many (though not me, as I didn't have yellowbug) relieves them of a serious bug.