Why does this report think System.Net is a domain for Potentially problematic ns configuration purposes, but realize it isn't for domain-listing purposes?
@JeffSchaller I haven't looked at the code in detail with respect to this occurrence, but I expect that it pulled the 100.run from the filename used in the two lines after the actual URL. The code does try to find valid domains in text outside of properly formatted URLs. Unfortunately, detecting domains outside of well formatted URLs is quite error prone, with a significant rate of detecting things that are not even domains, let alone spam domains.
You're right that the code could use work to do a better job at rejecting some common situations where it detects something as a domain, but where it's not a domain, or even something intended to be a domain.
@JeffSchaller Definitely relevant, thanks. The part that's confusing me a bit is that one part of the the code is handling this correctly, and another part is not. Like there are two different systems for domain detection.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in body, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, +5 more (828): Peak Wellness CBD Canada by evabrister on askubuntu.com
@tripleee But won't it catch a single line in body like that? A legitimate usage I can think of is "According to the specification: \nISO C\n<the standard>"
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in link text in answer, bad keyword with a link in answer, link at end of answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad asn for hostname in answer, +1 more (301): HP laptop frequently disconnects from Hotspot by Neha Sharma on askubuntu.com
@Mast sometimes they have typos; sometimes they get commissioned to spam and don't have any knowledge about whether the thing they are promoting might have been disconnected for spamming
@SmokeDetector I disagree with the FP, this was correctly caught. Essentially the blacklisted user is a spammer for their own cause (see their rude and politically oriented profile). Editing the question doesn't remove the undisclosed affiliation to their political leanings. --- It's no different going to HardwareRecs.SE and promoting a specific product, while working for the company; without disclosing the affiliation.
@Rob political speech is different in the US; but that aside, I'm not saying it's a good use of the platform but having controversial stuff in your profile is okay and the question seems vaguely relevant for the site they posted it on, even though it looks mainly like they are venting their frustration
the relationship to commercial promotions is strenuous at best; if people were not allowed to debate in favor of their political views, what purpose would that site serve?
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url-only title, bad ip for hostname in title, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in title, potentially bad ns for domain in title, +1 more (399): ketomegamart.com/natra-slim-keto/ by wddphqwdguph on askubuntu.com
@MarcoBonelli You are not a privileged user. Please see the privileges wiki page for information on what privileges are and what is expected of privileged users.
@tripleee Our site is based upon the law in NY, USA. In addition, that is not entirely "a political view / argument", it's a personal attack. Had they said more, or been clearer about what they mean when they say that, then it would be illegal. A different user has been permanently banned for life on Twitter for saying more - that's an example of what can happen when US law is broken; which the user in question is (currently) safely arms length from having done - based on looking at that one
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in body, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, pattern-matching product name in body, +3 more (592): Fleur Alpha Cream by GhediFulier on superuser.com
@Rob but this isn't necessarily "personal" against Donald Trump, who is not a user on Politics anyway. I'm not sure where exactly they draw the line but typically, elected officials are somewhat exempt from these protections, especially when the criticism (or in this case inarticulated griping) is directed at the office, not the person
@Rob the way the post is currently written seems fine to me. Surely, could be considered controversial (and probably also a very silly question), but seems acceptable. Are you saying that in its current state it is not OK?
