@tripleee A normalized version, {{'0525382202'}}, of that pattern is already on the number blacklist. You can use !!/bisect-number 0525382202 to determine which entries on the number lists match that pattern, which would tell you: Matched by 0525382202 on line 763 of blacklisted_numbers.txt: 0525382202 found verbatim
@SmokeDetector Smokey didnt pop this one in the rpg chat, I know we have certain reasons turned off for posting in there, is that why it didnt show up there?
I was misreading the configuration file at first, you need to have experimental-site-(site) explicitly enabled to get these reports
there are a couple of other places in the Smokey code base where the syntax requires you to enable something where perhaps it would make more sense to expect that you want it by default and require a setting to disable it
it's not like RPG gets a lot of reports regardless
but yeah, it could easily be done if a site wants it, the rooms.yml format is quite flexible
one of the consequences of [tag:dev-on-prod] is that many of these things are developed organically - whatever works for a first cut gets deployed and then you don't want to introduce breaking changes when you realize you want it to work slightly differently
@ThomasMarkov Likely, it didn't pop up in your chat because the weight was very low. Note in the MetaSmoke report that the weight is only 2. Weight is basically a metric for likely accuracy of the detection. Although that one turned out to be a TP, it was more likely to be a FP, considering the only things that triggered its detection was its association with a namespace server that hosts (has hosted) other spam.
Oh, y'all got there eventually. :-)
Wonder if we should watch "I don't know the answer but"...
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer, potentially bad asn for hostname in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (66): Are bags of holding fireproof? by deewanimastani on rpg.SE
@Pilot6 Because the reasons it was caught with did not indicate a high enough weight (basically confidence that it's spam) to cast autoflags. See our Autoflagging information for a more detailed explanation.
The number following the "potentially bad (x) in (x)" and other such reasons is the post's "weight". The higher the weight, the higher the chance to autoflag.
Hmmm... Would that last one be NAA or spam? It copies text from a quote in an existing answer, and the only new text contains a link to their "project".
@Jesse Agreed, it's a mix of "This solution worked for me!" and an unsolicited link to a casino site. Even though affiliation is disclosed, that's still unwarranted, and seems to only be there to drive traffic there.
@iBug I can leave a comment on one of your posts in the Team, which is likely to trigger an email for the inbox notification, but I'm not totally sure. Let me know if you want me to
