[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad keyword in title: Tribulus Terrestris For Mans Health by elizalowik on graphicdesign.SE
Username - Position 1-6: NIGGA Blacklisted user - blacklisted for //es.stackoverflow.com/questions/108984 (https://m.erwaysoftware.com/posts/by-url?url=//es.stackoverflow.com/questions/108984) by the metasmoke API
@Catija I know the commands, but I am thinking how do we catch emails posted in that way.
@tripleee Can we skip the part before @ and add the rest to the watch list? But I think we have discussed before about adding popular mail domains to the watchlist.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad NS for domain in body, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, +2 more: focus zx1 is works? by cenasingh on askubuntu.com
@SmokeDetector IMO, this qualifies as cat walks across keyboard rude/abusive, but is clearly intentionally abusing the main body of the question. IMO, there should be a system level block preventing this type of abuse.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad NS for domain in body, bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, +1 more: When I matched rationale, they by Histle aig on drupal.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, bad keyword in username, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, +1 more: What is Max Trim FX? by Max Trim FX on superuser.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, link at end of body, repeated URL at end of long post: Mumybear.com/club-tac/ by kmazzika22 on askubuntu.com
@AJ Thanks for mentioning it. I'll watch for it. However, IMO, the question we marked as fp- was properly classified. The user explicitly disclosed their affiliation and it was actually an answer. The link had information which appeared (somewhat) relevant to the question. The other two instances: I agree they're spam & would have marked them that way (both deleted as spam). IMO, @TetsuyaYamamoto properly classified all three posts. @SurajRao and I didn't give feedback for the other two.