Farelf Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 ...btw Farelf, there should be healthy border between your reporting motivation and paranoia.Read my posts again, read the actual words, not whatever that chip on your shoulder is telling you, then talk to me about paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 This Topic/Discussion had been moved to the Lounge area as it didn't actually relate to a SpamCop.net issue. That said, it should also be noted that the Lounge area is open to various items of subhect matter and vews. To repeat the Forum Descripton; This forum is for discussion of pretty much anything that doesn't quite fit the other specific Help Forum categories, to include rants and raves! Not sure at all why this 'conversation' has slipped a bit into offering some personal thoughts about other users, but ..... the focus needs to stay on the subject matter. Cookies can have their good intent and purposes. Cookies can be used for numerous bad things. Cookies were supposed to be quiet little things that sat in the corner, to be opened and used by a specific site in a specific fashion. However, cookies can be captured, manipulated, and then abused. Unfortunately, in the drive to make 'everything' web-enabled, this same scenario keeps popping out on all sorts of bad places, other applications, tools, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 ...Cookies can have their good intent and purposes. ...Well, the O/P seems to have taken a snit and departed. For the record, whatever purposes his site cookies were meant to serve (and, as said, it would be very difficult to run an effective bulletin board without them) while any antispyware application brands them as a 'risk' there will be some visitors who will delete them whenever they find them and some of those may never return because of it. Therefore the cookies will not be as effective as they were intended to be and they may be actively detrimental to the board numbers. If the 'risk' is assessed by anitispyware on domain name alone, a possibility dbiel suggests, then that's just part of the territory. I don't know if that's the case, in fact the retrospective nature of SAS's assessment would seem to make it somewhat unlikely. Whatever. Owners, if unaware, need to know and it's nice if they can refrain from shooting the messenger, cutting off their noses to spite their faces, burying their heads in the sand or otherwise indulging themselves in the flawed defensive reflexes of the unready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Wheeeee! In the last four days, I'm up from 3 to 75 banned IP addresses per day on one forum *twiddles lips like a blithering idiot* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 ...*twiddles lips like a blithering idiot*There ought to be an emoticon for that (let's call it "fwub fwub") but, alas it appears to be absent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 LOL!!! I bet you and Wazoo could use that one to describe things sometimes Well, since noon pacific time today, I have "plinked" about 250 IP's of spammers-using-SOCKS at one forum alone. The good news in all this is they're using them up faster than last time for sure 8) Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.