@tripleee A normalized version, {'18089003847', '8089003847'}, of that pattern is already on the number blacklist. You can use !!/bisect-number +1 808 900 3847 to determine which entries on the number lists match that pattern.
I'm ... not giving 'tp' feedback on grace-edited posts, such as metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/364220, since the reported post itself isn't tp. Hope that's OK
@SurajRao just in case you catch one on-site before it's deleted, there's the 'report-force' command to force MS to re-scan it. I've only ever caught 1 that way, but FYI!
@JeffSchaller Actually, I would go with tp for those posts, since the intent of the post is to edit it into spam. The non-spam nature of the original post is intentionally deceptive, with the only purpose being to convert it to spam.
@cigien understood, and I'm not trying to change anyone's feedback, but I can't personally take that much context into account. I don't know what a post is going to do in the future, and I'm not going to take the time to click on each one to find out
(if I ran across such a post in the review queue, or through a transcript search, I might very well give it "fp" feedback, unless I saw lots of other "tp" feedback and/or comments)
Of course, you don't need to review posts just to make sure it's not edited into spam (and fp on the original post, without any other context, is perfectly reasonable). If you do notice that it was edited into spam, particularly for the current spam wave, giving tp feedback would be better.
Would this answer be considered spam according to our current standards? electronics.stackexchange.com/a/618997 The second paragraph third sentence is what I find spammy
@SmokeDetector tp- The solicitation to contact off-site, along with the website link, and phone number is something we would want to block. Given that there appears to be a legit answer, and as far as I can tell, it's the user's first offense, I'm giving this the benefit of doubt (i.e. it's a user who's unaware of the promotion rules), and have edited the answer rather than raise a spam flag.
sdc report stackoverflow.com/a/72176485/4657412 "Seems like an attempt to promote the website in an unrelated context. Possibly just an innocent low quality answer though"
@ThomasWard When you're around, do you know where the script is that does MS' automatic backups? I looked in crontab and didn't see it. I'm just wanting to change the file format so I can do some S3 pruning optimization.
Current:
metasmoke-priv-20220509_160001.sql.gz
Desired:
160001_metasmoke-priv-20220509_160001.sql.gz
(yes, it's dumb looking, but I want to drop to just dailies for old backups and S3 lifecycle actions only do prefixes)
@ThomasWard Can't do a proper Unix timestamp, I need something "stripe-able" at the beginning
(My plan is to discard all backups starting with 160* or 080* at the beginning of the filename, after some number of days)
Because yes, that would be the sane filename. But I need the hour first without dynamic content before it
Otherwise, I have to go write a lambda or something to nuke them. Which I can do, it'd just be easiest to hack the filename and put in a lifecycle rule
@Undo can you verify in S3 you see {233814}_ and 234000_ ? you can remove them both by the way :) (the former might have asploded, because i noticed it mid-transfer while it was transfering 15MB segments). Just want to make sure they are there.
