mmook using IM now

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

There used to be a way to IM via the website profile.

---

No, there wasn't.  Let me say this again... what you're talking about was called a PM, which let you send a Private Message to a person on their web profile.  Never have you been able to send someone an Instant Message without first opening the viewer.  They were always two completely different things.  Before LL did away with Private Messaging, when you would click on Message (as in your illustration) you would have a choice of IM or PM... now you only have IM.

Getting rid of PMs obviously got rid of bots that couldn't log in (this was LL's "nuclear" reaction to the problem), so now we've got problems with bots that can... something which has always been possible, but I suppose hasn't really been exploited on this scale until now.  I say "suppose" because I frankly have no idea on which scale it's being exploited... I haven't personally received any spam from anyone.

...Dres (Watch me be inundated now that I've said that... lol.)

[Dillon Levenque]

Obviously they must be logging in or you couldn't get an IM inworld, Aethel.

I believe originally it was all being done via IM's on the Feed, which at the time could be accessed anytime anywhere by anyone with an account. Now when you try send an IM on the Feed the viewer is launched (and presumably you have to log in before the IM is sent). Given that, they are presumably ignoring the Feed and just sending inworld IM's.

This indicates a really concerted effort on the part of the scammer spammers, at least it seems like one to me. Isn't that kind of time and effort expensive compared to normal automated spamming? Are enough people biting on their offer to make the practice pay?

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I looked up your "one step thinking" phrase because I hadn't come across it before, and I found that it's not a well known phrase or saying.

---

LOL... I've been wondering if Anya has been single-handedly trying to create a new internet meme and doing a rather terrible job of it.

...Dres

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

There used to be a way to IM via the website profile.

---

No, there wasn't.  Let me say this again... what you're talking about was called a PM, which let you send a

Private Message

to a person on their web profile. 

Never have you been able to send someone an

Instant Message

without first opening the viewer.

  They were always two completely different things.  Before LL did away with Private Messaging, when you would click on Message (as in your illustration) you would have a choice of IM or PM... now you only have IM.

Getting rid of PMs obviously got rid of bots that couldn't log in (this was LL's "nuclear" reaction to the problem), so now we've got problems with bots that can... something which has always been possible, but I suppose hasn't really been exploited on this scale until now.  I say "suppose" because I frankly have no idea on which scale it's being exploited... I haven't personally received any spam from anyone.

...Dres (Watch me be inundated now that I've said that... lol.)

---

 

Are you positive? I'm not a prolific IM'er but I could swear I've sent rezday and other Feed IM's—public IM's, not PM's—to people from my PC at work and it has never had a viewer. I can't now, but I really thought I had done so in the past.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Obviously they must be logging in or you couldn't get an IM inworld, Aethel.

I believe originally it was all being done via IM's on the Feed, which at the time could be accessed anytime anywhere by anyone with an account. Now when you try send an IM on the Feed the viewer is launched (and presumably you have to log in before the IM is sent).

---

I give up.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

There used to be a way to IM via the website profile.

---

No, there wasn't.  Let me say this again... what you're talking about was called a PM, which let you send a

Private Message

to a person on their web profile. 

Never have you been able to send someone an

Instant Message

without first opening the viewer.

  They were always two completely different things.  Before LL did away with Private Messaging, when you would click on Message (as in your illustration) you would have a choice of IM or PM... now you only have IM.

Getting rid of PMs obviously got rid of bots that couldn't log in (this was LL's "nuclear" reaction to the problem), so now we've got problems with bots that can... something which has always been possible, but I suppose hasn't really been exploited on this scale until now.  I say "suppose" because I frankly have no idea on which scale it's being exploited... I haven't personally received any spam from anyone.

...Dres (Watch me be inundated now that I've said that... lol.)

---

 

Are you positive? I'm not a prolific IM'er but I could swear I've sent rezday and other Feed IM's—public IM's, not PM's—to people from my PC at work and it has never had a viewer. I can't now, but I really thought I had done so in the past.

---

There was never any such thing as a public IM.  What you probably did was publicly post to someone's feed (which you are still be able to do)... that's not an IM, public or otherwise, nor was it a PM.

...Dres

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

There used to be a way to IM via the website profile.

---

No, there wasn't.  Let me say this again... what you're talking about was called a PM, which let you send a

Private Message

to a person on their web profile. 

Never have you been able to send someone an

Instant Message

without first opening the viewer.

  They were always two completely different things.  Before LL did away with Private Messaging, when you would click on Message (as in your illustration) you would have a choice of IM or PM... now you only have IM.

Getting rid of PMs obviously got rid of bots that couldn't log in (this was LL's "nuclear" reaction to the problem), so now we've got problems with bots that can... something which has always been possible, but I suppose hasn't really been exploited on this scale until now.  I say "suppose" because I frankly have no idea on which scale it's being exploited... I haven't personally received any spam from anyone.

...Dres (Watch me be inundated now that I've said that... lol.)

---

 

Are you positive? I'm not a prolific IM'er but I could swear I've sent rezday and other Feed IM's—public IM's, not PM's—to people from my PC at work and it has never had a viewer. I can't now, but I really thought I had done so in the past.

---

There was never any such thing as a public IM.  What you probably did was publicly post to someone's feed (which you are still be able to do)... that's not an IM, public or otherwise, nor was it a PM.

...Dres

---

 

No, I did mean IM's, but I've been told already by others that I'm remembering it wrong. It must have just so happened that I was never moved to send a Feed IM except at times I was inworld (and there weren't many: I just scrolled back and found three in six months). I do know I never tried to send a Feed IM and had a failure.

[Aethelwine]

Well I have only received mmook inworld instant messages from 2 people both blocked on the first receipt (so they could have sent more than one message but I wouldn't know).

It could just be me they are sending them too, but from threads it would seem likely to maybe be somewhere in the region of 1% of people gettting them. It seems more on a level with just making a point, that they can do it and what grief that causes than anything more substantive. I suspect it is just one individual being and arse and getting some kicks out of irritating people.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

There used to be a way to IM via the website profile.

---

No, there wasn't.  Let me say this again... what you're talking about was called a PM, which let you send a

Private Message

to a person on their web profile. 

Never have you been able to send someone an

Instant Message

without first opening the viewer.

  They were always two completely different things.  Before LL did away with Private Messaging, when you would click on Message (as in your illustration) you would have a choice of IM or PM... now you only have IM.

Getting rid of PMs obviously got rid of bots that couldn't log in (this was LL's "nuclear" reaction to the problem), so now we've got problems with bots that can... something which has always been possible, but I suppose hasn't really been exploited on this scale until now.  I say "suppose" because I frankly have no idea on which scale it's being exploited... I haven't personally received any spam from anyone.

...Dres (Watch me be inundated now that I've said that... lol.)

---

 

Are you positive? I'm not a prolific IM'er but I could swear I've sent rezday and other Feed IM's—public IM's, not PM's—to people from my PC at work and it has never had a viewer. I can't now, but I really thought I had done so in the past.

---

There was never any such thing as a public IM.  What you probably did was publicly post to someone's feed (which you are still be able to do)... that's not an IM, public or otherwise, nor was it a PM.

...Dres

---

 

No, I did mean IM's, but I've been told already by others that I'm remembering it wrong. It must have just so happened that I was never moved to send a Feed IM except at times I was inworld (and there weren't many: I just scrolled back and found three in six months). I do know I never tried to send a Feed IM and had a failure.

---

There was never any such thing as a feed IM.  Perhaps I'm not explaining this very well, because, let's face it, it's not the easiest thing to explain and I'm not feeling very well atm.

Web profiles have always had it's own messaging system that was completely separate from the inworld messaging system.  On your web profile, you could post to your feed, post to someone else's feed, reply to posts on your feed, reply to posts on someone else's feed or send someone a Private Message.  What you could never do is send someone an inworld Instant Message from your web profile... period.

...Dres

[Dillon Levenque]

No, I get it now. I always thought a Feed IM differed from an inworld IM, and I was wrong. I called it a Feed IM in my post just now because it was typed on the Feed, not in an inworld IM window.

I have never used my Web profile inworld. Not ever.

 

 

 

ETA web profile comment

[Anya Ristow]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I looked up your "one step thinking" phrase because I hadn't come across it before, and I found that it's not a well known phrase or saying. So, unless I'm mistaken, you use it to mean that people (including me) are suggesting a single step to take that will solve the problem.

---

No, it means you are not thinking more than one step ahead. Like when you play Go and you put your piece on the end of a row and turn the whole row, but you leave another space for your opponent to do the same, and he reclaims all the pieces you turned, plus one.

Turning off PMs was one-step thinking. The more important spam vector--IM--was the obvious next move for the spammer.

Suggesting email filters on the client side is one-step thinking. Anyone who's been online for twenty years knows how well that's worked. Mmook so far hasn't even had to resort to obfuscation. And we only have one spammer. A solution that addresses only that level of trouble isn't very forward-thinking.

 

[Anya Ristow]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I looked up your "one step thinking" phrase because I hadn't come across it before...

---

Sorry, it does seem to be not as well-known as I thought. This might help:

Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in games

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Anya Ristow wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I looked up your "one step thinking" phrase because I hadn't come across it before, and I found that it's not a well known phrase or saying. So, unless I'm mistaken, you use it to mean that people (including me) are suggesting a single step to take that will solve the problem.

---

No, it means you are not thinking more than one step ahead. Like when you play Go and you put your piece on the end of a row and turn the whole row, but you leave another space for your opponent to do the same, and he reclaims all the pieces you turned, plus one.

Turning off PMs was one-step thinking. The more important spam vector--IM--was the obvious next move for the spammer.

Suggesting email filters on the client side is one-step thinking. Anyone who's been online for twenty years knows how well that's worked. Mmook so far hasn't even had to resort to obfuscation. And we only have one spammer. A solution that addresses only that level of trouble isn't very forward-thinking.

 

---

Rather than continually telling people what's wrong with their thinking, why don't you do some of your own?

What people have been doing in this thread is suggesting ways one can possibly mitigate the effect of these spam IMs, since there's nothing else that can be done until LL takes steps to combat them on a systemic level.  I simply can't fathom what more you expect from people who have no control over how much spam you receive than what's been put forth already.  Your posts are becoming monotonously boring.

...Dres

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anya Ristow wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I looked up your "one step thinking" phrase because I hadn't come across it before, and I found that it's not a well known phrase or saying. So, unless I'm mistaken, you use it to mean that people (including me) are suggesting a single step to take that will solve the problem.

---

No, it means you are not thinking more than one step ahead. Like when you play Go and you put your piece on the end of a row and turn the whole row, but you leave another space for your opponent to do the same, and he reclaims all the pieces you turned, plus one.

Turning off PMs was one-step thinking. The more important spam vector--IM--was the obvious next move for the spammer.

Suggesting email filters on the client side is one-step thinking. Anyone who's been online for twenty years knows how well that's worked. Mmook so far hasn't even had to resort to obfuscation. And we only have one spammer. A solution that addresses only that level of trouble isn't very forward-thinking.

 

---

I see. It would have been better if you'd written what you meant so that we could actually understand it.

Nevertheless, in this particular case, one step solutions are the answers. You can only deal with each problem and one-steps do deal with them. There is no need to think further ahead. If spam reaches your email, filter it out in your email client - one step solution. If the spammer then moves on to another route, block that too - a one-step solution for a different problem.

Since you frown on one-step solutions that work, you could use a multi-step one and, when a spam arrives in your email, you could filter it out and, in case it comes from your profile feed, turn your feed off. And in case the spammer might start using IMs, restrict those too. And in case the spammer might using local chat, turn that off somehow as well. Turn every means of communication off in case the spammer starts to use it. Then you'll be able to feel content because you came up with a super multi-step solution that worked rather than the one-step solutions that work of inexperienced people

Btw, I got another one in my email yesterday. It's really getting incredibly out of hand. That's one in the last month. Why should I have to delete a spam email a month. I'm a paying customer, for goodness sakes! I don't have the time to waste deleting a whole email a month. It's so serious that I demand that Second Life be shut down until this problem is solved!  ARE YOU LISTENING LINDEN LAB????

[Anya Ristow]

I got another one. LL apprently isn't doing the one-step-thinking thing of filtering anything with a link to mmook. One hopes they're working on something better.

If mmook was smart, they'd scan for active avatars, so their 5000 per day messages would reach more real humans.

More likely, they'll just get more IP addresses so they can do more than 5000 per day.