Is this this message Kosher NOT at all. SPAMMER

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

To answer that, the person was checked, and seeing as the Member Number was listed as being current, it was passed.

The initial IP address check came up as being normal, and within USA, but as this fella has subsequently used 8 additional and different IP addresses, he showed his true colours.

With all the Spammers that have tried to join since May, and there has been a vast amount (around 120 thus far that I have personally weeded out and banned).   Sadly, this one got through.   BUT, has now been caught, and also banned.

Bruce.

[Carfreak]

Yes, curious how he got approved to post as a supposed CLC Member. 

Did he use the real name of Member #214?

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

Yes, curious how he got approved to post as a supposed CLC Member.

Did he use the real name of Member #214?

I thought I answered the question in my previous post.

No.  He used a "Handle" so there was no way of putting a name to it.  Just the Number 214.

Upon checking 214's Number, it had no email address for cross-checking either.  But, came up as a Financial Member.

It could be that he was lucky enough to yes another Members Number, but without a real name to cross-check, makes it hard.   Plus, My Phone provider does not allow me to make overseas phone calls, so I was a bit hamstrung there.

I have to apologise for letting the team down in this case.

Bruce.

PS.  I have chastised myself severely.

[Abe Lugo]

I searched the member's profile linked below.

https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/index.php?action=profile;u=26186

The main red flag is registered on the forum 11-11-2024. Also the low CLC #214 which would have been issued in the late 1950s is another.

If you have a digital list of member is there a way to audit the list bs spammer/scammers that use old member numbers to register. Or lock out certain numbers from registering?

This totally circumvents what you were trying to achieve with the new format.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

But, we have had some very early Members joining the Forum.   There is nothing wrong with older Members joining the Forum when they decide that they want to investigate the wonders of the Internet.

One has to remember that in a lot of retirement villages there are classes in the use of the Internet, plus Grand Parents being educated by their much younger relatives to branch out.

Bruce.

[Carfreak]

Here's a suggestion, when someone is registering and the CLC Directory for that Member Number doesn't include an email address to use for verification, why not reach out to the Applicant by email and ask them to provide the Member name and address to cross reference the information? 

Otherwise it sounds like anyone can select a random number between 2 and approximately 36,000 with the chance it may match a current CLC Member who doesn't have an email address. Still not a fool proof method as former CLC Directories are sometimes available on Fleabay and other sources.

I previously suggested we need more Mods who are available during the U.S. daytime hours to help carry the load of verifying persons registering for the Forum. I raised this question last summer year after Bill Hedge's passing but was told you felt there were sufficient volunteers already.

[Highwayman68]

Here's a suggestion, when someone is registering and the CLC Directory for that Member Number doesn't include an email address to use for verification, why not reach out to the Applicant by email and ask them to provide the Member name and address to cross reference the information? 

Otherwise it sounds like anyone can select a random number between 2 and approximately 36,000 with the chance it may match a current CLC Member who doesn't have an email address. Still not a fool proof method as former CLC Directories are sometimes available on Fleabay and other sources.

I previously suggested we need more Mods who are available during the U.S. daytime hours to help carry the load of verifying persons registering for the Forum. I raised this question last summer year after Bill Hedge's passing but was told you felt there were sufficient volunteers already.

I can help with that, I am in the Eastern Time zone.

[smokuspollutus]

I assume Felix paid his $25 membership fee prior to posting?

There is no reason why moderators should be sifting through all of the new applicants. That is a ton of work that at the end of the day is not fool-proof.

Before all the changes happened to ostensibly eliminate the scammers, I asked why not just sandbox the new applicants to an introduction forum where he can introduce himself in a single thread for a number of quality posts? Call it the "Neighborhood Watch" or something. Fully realized members can interact with him, determine if he's a real person or a scammer, do some community building with new people, take a load off the moderators, and stop the scams that seem to be so often successful on this board. This introduction sub-forum should be viewable in its entirety only by fully realized members and invisible to guests/potential members less their own introduction thread. This will keep the bots/scammers/AI from learning how to sound convincing, and maybe make individuals willing to share more about themselves. Include a YES or NO poll on every thread in that forum, and once enough fully realized members vote YES, the potential new person can be allowed full privileges. Introduce a "report to moderator" button on everyone's profile in case one fools us, or in the event of some future incivility occurs with a member for an easy immediate red flag.

Regardless, there should be NO PM PRIVLEGES FOR ANY 0 POST ACCOUNT. This is standard fare in almost any online forum nowadays. I never received any scam messages on this board until I started posting in the WTB section. These scammers know what they're after and they go where the money is. They prey on people where it is not visible to everyone else to call them out on it. Deny them the space to operate, and they will go away.

I think we're all very thankful to the moderators for the work they do invisibly denying scammers access before there is a problem for which they receive no credit. But there's no reason why they should have shoulder the whole load. If there are common sense measures taken to reduce the scammers like the above, you can consider me another eager east coast applicant to moderate.

This forum is a ghost town since the members only changes-sad but at the very least there should be no reason at all to have these same old cons still continue, I think we owe it to the posting audience who made this forum a valuable asset and were unfortunately culled.

[59-in-pieces]

Bruce,

There was a comment by smokuspollutus I think ?? that the Moderators are over worked.
I don't know what that means quantitatively, in a measurable way over time.
How many times have we heard that saying only to distract from explaining why - as others have pointed out - members are being scammed and loosing money in $s & or goods, parts.

Do you have a number of NEW/old members on average that each Moderator deals with such issues which could cause our members to potentially loose money.

I'm personally not interested in their scanning for "BAD" words or getting into a tiff, say with you or another member.
Those issues happen infrequently without the loss of money, and often pointed out by readers of the posts, to Moderators.

So on a priority, time best spent, basis - wouldn't focusing their precious time on crookery, be highest, NO MATTER HOW TOUGH.

By the way Bruce, thanks for the apology, so rare to hear in times like these.

Have fun,
Steve B.

[Abe Lugo]

To answer that, the person was checked, and seeing as the Member Number was listed as being current, it was passed.

The initial IP address check came up as being normal, and within USA, but as this fella has subsequently used 8 additional and different IP addresses, he showed his true colours.

With all the Spammers that have tried to join since May, and there has been a vast amount (around 120 thus far that I have personally weeded out and banned).   Sadly, this one got through.   BUT, has now been caught, and also banned.

Bruce.

Wow we have members that old still active some how? Or is there a lifetime member list also?

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

I assume Felix paid his $25 membership fee prior to posting? 

The only way the Moderators know if the Membership has been paid is by checking through the Cornerstone Website (They handle the Club Membership) and doing a search on the Member Number quoted by the Member.  If this comes up as "Financial", then they get the green light.

I also check the IP address against the Spam Forum Blacklist, as well as their email address.

Most of the time, Spammers are reasonably easy to spot, but I won't say how as anyone could be viewing this post, and change what they do.  The most Spammers are from Russia, Ukraine, Netherlands and even some from USA, but without a proper Membership Number which can be cross-checked through Cornerstone, they don't proceed.

When a Member is Approved, they are sent an email.  When a Spammer is stopped, they simply are not sent anything, but refused.  When a Suspect Member is found, they are sent a Reject notice, with an email as to what they didn't complete correctly to pass.  In most cases, this is an incorrect Member Number, which could be a Typo, or just a false Number.  With This fellow, this was the first time I have encounted anyone using an incorrect number that turned out to be the Financial Member.

As I have said before, we check every new Member to the Forum when we are automatically notified of the application to join the Forum.

Lastly, I agree that no new Member should be allowed to send PM's without having at least made a certain number of Posts.

Bruce.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

Wow we have members that old still active some how? Or is there a lifetime member list also?

The list of Members is in the International Membership Directory, and we do have a lot of Members older than I (77) that are active.   We have to keep ourselves active.   As one person answered when asked how does one get to be 100.   His answer was "Don't die"

Bruce.

[Carfreak]

Screenshot Admin view from Simple Machines used on another Forum.

There are settings that can be used to limit new member activity.

[Stefan Bartelski]

Screenshot Admin view from Simple Machines used on another Forum.

There are settings that can be used to limit new member activity.

We used this feature previously, but it was turned off when we changed to the 'Members Only' posting mode. 

I agree that this spammer slipped through the net. This was probably because the review of the CLC Membership profile was only looking at whether they are a paid-up member. I have placed a note in the 'Break Room' forum (for moderators) that we should also check profile data, primarily email address and name.

Stefan

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

If you have a digital list of member is there a way to audit the list bs spammer/scammers that use old member numbers to register. Or lock out certain numbers from registering?

This totally circumvents what you were trying to achieve with the new format.

You give me too much credit, my friend. I was only a bystander on these matters, same as you.   

[59-in-pieces]

By the way - who has the right and ability to MOFIFY the SUBJECT line of MY initial post.

"NOT at all. SPAMMER" - I DID NOT WRITE THIS.

Do we need to check every line of what we type. to avoid unauthorized rewrites.

This is getting more screwed up as we go deeper.

What has been previously written - although the owner of the membership number is not the guy who used his information certainly is a SPAMER - SCAMMER.
So stop dancing on the head of a pin. and fix the problem.

This fiasco undermines the confidence in our process as well of those who are supposedly running and protecting the show.

Have fun - carefully,
Steve
Steve B.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

By the way - who has the right and ability to MOFIFY the SUBJECT line of MY initial post.

G'day Steve,

Only the Administrators and Moderators have the authority to change a heading.   And it was myself that added the SPAMMER word to highlight the fact that the person being written about was an actual Spammer, but only after the matter came to light.

I apologise if it offended you, but you will notice that there was no editing of your actual post.

Whenever a member edits their own post, there is always an Edit Notification at the top right hand of the post as to who did it and when.

Bruce.

 

[59-in-pieces]

Bruce,

I would suggest that the Subject line never be modified, unless the author does it.

If after some research days later it was found that there was a problem which needed explanation resulting in a conclusion - that belongs in the subsequent postings - not amending the Subject line.

Have fun,
Steve B.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

Hardly a day goes by that I don't receive some sort of spamming/phishing in my regular email. Hacking/spamming/scamming is a fact of life in the "information age" despite the best attempts to thwart it. If the Pentagon can get hacked, it's pretty clear no site is immune. Vigilance, therefore, must also be a fact of life. As a general rule, whenever someone solicits a business transaction within a short time of joining a site or webpage, it should be treated suspiciously. 

Obviously something didn't smell right to the OP, which is why he brought it up here in the first place. Thanks to the detective work of the CLC community, no losses occurred so the system worked, albeit in a somewhat roundabout way. In the spirit of the upcoming holiday, I think that's something that we should be thankful for.

Eric

PS: I also think the rewording of the post title to gain the attention of other potential victims is appropriate in this particular case.  One man's opinion.

 

[Art Director]

Regarding the CLC number being issued in the late 1950s Eric, that is not necessarily correct. At one point Mary Lou Evans, Membership Secretary when we joined, was reassigning membership numbers.

The story I heard years ago was that membership numbers started in 1982 with No. 1. As members renewed that year, they were assigned a number by the membership secretary (Mary Lou Evans). CLC co-founder Norm Uhlir had a four-digit member number and I wondered why, as I didn't know the whole story. But Norm got his respect years later. During Dave Ritchie's presidency, Norm was reassigned member No. 1 by Mike Book.