[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, potentially bad keyword in username, username similar to website in answer (73): Symbol identification (J?) by dourado car on electronics.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword with email in body, bad phone number in body, pattern-matching email in body, potentially bad keyword in body (324): ATM skimming links by Henderson Conor Sean on security.SE
Would this answer be considered spam or just NAA? I would consider it spam if the email domain wasn't @google.com, but maybe that doesn't matter and it's still spam?
Likely NAA, but note that there is a different company that is/was doing that repeatedly even after a mod message, so if you see it happen again, it might be worth a custom flag with a link to previous instances of it and an explanation that they keep doing it
Attempting to spam flag using FIRE is throwing a {"name":"missing_key","detail":"No key was provided or the provided key is invalid."} (error 500) response from MS... Any ideas?
@Spevacus It's not just you. It's an SE API issue. After telling us for years that we must match the provided flag title text to determine what flag type, they have gone through and changed all the flag titles to be Sentence case from being lowercase. Previously, only "Duplicate" was capitalized. I don't know yet if they messed with the non-English identifiers.
FIXED: Just FYI: All SmokeDetector/metasmoke flagging and autoflagging is down for a while. SE rolled out a change to the SE API/data backing the SE API which is causing all flagging to fail. It's something we can adapt to, but it would be nice to know that they are going to do this sort of thing.
