[RESOLVED] Rube et. al.: REQ Forum Help

[nuncus]

Dear Folk:

I have been attempting to respond to the follow-up post by The Rube in the thread, "Giorgio! -- Imagefap Killed "Flashgot Link" This Afternoon. " since last night.

But every time I try to submit my reply to his reply, I am being blocked from submitting my message and I receive the following nonsensical error message:

Ooops, something in your posting triggered my antispam filter...
Please use the "Back" button to modify your content and retry.

at what appears in my browser address bar as the following location address:

http://forums.informaction.com/posting. ... 01#preview

My reply message is a simple, plain text format message.

Anyone have any idea at all as to what could be causing this message board response to my simple reply to Rube's reply to my original post???

BTW: Rube, I'm not ignoring you; but I cannot get the board to take my reply post.

Nuncus

[nuncus]

SOLVED! The phrase, "right -click," (but without the space preceding the hyphen) triggered the spam filter. Changing "right -click" to "right click" throughout the reply allowed the message to be posted. In other words,
"right<no space>hyphen<nospace>click triggered the spam filter. I couldn't post this message either until I inserted the space after the word, "right," and before the hypnen.

That is an INSANE spam filter trigger. In fact it's FUBAR. Somebody needs to fix the spam filter.

Nuncus

[Tom T.]

I will call to Giorgio's attention your suggestion, to see why "right-click" triggers the filter, and if it is safe to remove it from the filter list.

However, having spent the past half hour deleting dozens of spams and banning dozens of spammers, right now I would be in favor of tightening the filter, not loosening it.
Just kidding -- sorry for your inconvenience.

[Giorgio Maone]

I will call to Giorgio's attention your suggestion, to see why "right-click" triggers the filter, and if it is safe to remove it from the filter list.

It was a bug in the filter checking for "too many consonants in a row", which was skipping the hyphen.
Fixed now, thanks.

[Tom T.]

It was a bug in the filter checking for "too many consonants in a row", which was skipping the hyphen.

Interesting, because I just logged in as a registered user, not Mod, using a test account I have for just that purpose, and posted this message, which contains the word "strengths"
Five consonants in a row, no hyphen, no spam message. Apparently the filter is skipping that check, or recognized it as a valid dictionary word.

[Giorgio Maone]

It was a bug in the filter checking for "too many consonants in a row", which was skipping the hyphen.

Interesting, because I just logged in as a registered user, not Mod, using a test account I have for just that purpose, and posted this message, which contains the word "strengths"
Five consonants in a row, no hyphen, no spam message. Apparently the filter is skipping that check, or recognized it as a valid dictionary word.

Sorry, I expressed myself in a misleading way. The filter was actually treating the hyphen as if it was a consonant. The threshold is 6 consonants in a row, which should be tolerant enough, and your word passes as expected.

[Tom T.]

Sorry, I expressed myself in a misleading way. The filter was actually treating the hyphen as if it was a consonant. The threshold is 6 consonants in a row, which should be tolerant enough, and your word passes as expected.

Yes, that is the longest brain-teaser I have for "word with the most consecutive consonants".

[Thrawn]

Yes, that is the longest brain-teaser I have for "word with the most consecutive consonants".

Tsktsk, Tom, did you not ask Startpage? There are several. But all obscure enough that it's unlikely to be a problem.

[Tom T.]

[Tsktsk, Tom, did you not ask Startpage? There are several. But all obscure enough that it's unlikely to be a problem.

I have always seen the "colloquialism" (not "word") spelled as "Tsk, tsk" or "Tsk tsk" -- it's onomatopoeic, anyway.

Many of the others arguably would be hyphenated, In fact, dictionary.com lists "catch phrase" as the correct usage, but adds that the hyphenated form is also acceptable. But not as one word.

They list no plural form at all for "borscht", and also include "borsch" as a spelling -- one less consonant. This is a problem with all words of foreign origin, which is one reason that they're excluded from such things.

And no, I don't care to research the rest, TUVM.


btw, for those with too much time on their hands, "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" is used in a song parody here.