@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url-only title, blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +6 more (795): supplementeffects.com/adrenastack/ by okhccnis on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url in title, blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, body starts with title and ends in url, pattern-matching website in body, +3 more (592): supplementeffects.com/adrenastack/ by gaflgopkmr on wordpress.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, no whitespace in title, repeating characters in body, repeating characters in title, +1 more (483): mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ✏️ by Men on ru.stackoverflow.com
@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Blacklisted website in body and Blacklisted website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
> Blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad ns for domain in title ---------- Blacklisted website in body - Position 0-22: supportservicehelp.com Blacklisted website in title - Position 0-22: supportservicehelp.com Potentially bad ns for domain in body - supportservicehelp.com NS suspicious ns43.domaincontrol.com.,ns44.domaincontrol.com. Potentially bad ns for domain in title - supportservicehelp.com NS suspicious ns43.domaincontrol.com.,ns44.domaincontrol.com.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, bad pattern in url body, body starts with title and ends in url, pattern-matching product name in body, +5 more (686): Keto plus Diet Shark Tank by ketodietsharktank on physics.SE
@Zoe I really hate when people put their emails with spaces... How can that be caught: Cybergeek2050(@)gmail .com? And also that: quickfundsrecovery @ gmail .com (proposed solution above; check)?
and BTW reject this PR; no reason to watch this as not caught.
> Pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching product name in title, pattern-matching website in body, pattern-matching website in title, pattern-matching website in username, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad ns for domain in title ---------- Pattern-matching product name in body - Position 0-13: sharktankdiet Pattern-matching product name in title - Position 0-13: sharktankdiet Pattern-matching website in body - Position 9-17: diet.com Pattern-matching website in title - Position 9-17: diet.com
@double-beep The formulation which we've generally been using is: quickfundsrecovery(?:\W*(?:at\W*)?gmail\W*(?:dot\W*)?com)? However, that's only appropriate when the username is sufficiently unique such that we don't need the domain in order to prevent FP.
@Makyen I meant, it's only appropriate to have the last ?, which makes the @domain optional, when the username is something that won't generate FP when looked for on it's own.
You can hire spammers, if everything that was a possible flag candidate needed to have an owner that was affiliated with the site, a lot of spam would remain on the site.
> Would not be caught as a post, title or username.
> Potentially problematic ns configuration in body, potentially problematic ns configuration in title ---------- Potentially problematic ns configuration in body - Suspicious nameservers: all IP addresses for bibloteka.com are in set {'65.60.5.235'} Potentially problematic ns configuration in title - Suspicious nameservers: all IP addresses for bibloteka.com are in set {'65.60.5.235'}
Is that something that we're OK with using report-force for? I would think that if that's something we want to enable, we'd want to make it something that doesn't duplicate content in MS.
IIRC report force was for filling in missed reports if MS was down?
