A Caution and a Quick Reminder

[JRTJH]

Just a reminder to all the membership that this forum and all other forums like it are open season for SPAMMERS... Right now, on the forum "with you", there are the following:

CURRENTLY ACTIVE USERS: 707 (18 MEMBERS AND 689 GUESTS)

All of those guests are "not members". A few are people who just haven't yet joined the forum but are looking at posts. A few are "bots" from Google, FaceBook, Twitter and a few marketing firms. Unfortunately, there are also "CROOKS" from Russia, Romania, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China and other locations around the globe where RV's just aren't that popular. Many of them are logged into the forum, specifically looking for information they might be able to use to separate you from your wallet......

We recently had one member receive an email (at his private email address) asking him if he'd like to be paid to allow someone in the UK to post occasional articles on his "blog". He was assured the posts would be short, properly worded by an "English major" and he would be compensated for his help in providing a place for this person to post.

We are looking into how his email address was obtained, we don't believe it has ever been published in any post on this forum, but are researching to confirm that.

So, a CAUTION to everyone: If you get any email at your private email account, offering you something (benefits or cash payments, etc) please proceed with caution. It may well be SPAM or a "mining operation" to gather more personal information for later use by those CROOKS.....

As always, YOU are your own best guard against SPAM and against being mined for personal information. Should you get any email asking for information or offering to pay you for anything associated with this forum, please do not reply to that email and please notify a member of the site team via PM of the incident. This is not a request that you send ALL your SPAM, only that which is clearly related specifically to your membership in THIS FORUM.

Thanks

[Gary R.]

Thank you John for the reminder.

It is a shame we live in a world under constant threat from computer bots, phishing scams, spam, mining and other scams.

One must be vigilant in the online world and remember if an email promises something too good to be true, it likely is. Run, don't walk from junk like this.

Take care everyone!

[Roper46]

Thanks for the "heads up".

[jasin1]

even when it’s a Nigerian Prince?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s6maxxDCVC4

[cougar23]

Just what I need, more spammers and hackers.

[wiredgeorge]

Just a few minutes ago, had the phone ring. It was a 210 (local area code) number and I answered and said "hello". There was that strange background sound as if the caller was in a crowded room with other callers. Finally the caller came on and introduced himself as "Steve" with a heavy accent that sounded like the sub-continent. In any case, I asked him what he wanted and he launched into a medicare related spiel and after a few minutes, I thanked him and said I wasn't interested. He promptly hung up without a word. I called the number back and was informed it wasn't a working number.

I get these several times a day and they could also be about the government paying me for employees (some sort of program) or student load forgiveness. All the same scam and I think "Steve" is the caller. It has gotten to the point where 80 percent of my calls are scammers. I am loathe to employ some sort of filtering as it is my business phone and don't wish to have potential customers blocked. What ever happened to the "do not call list"? Seems it isn't working so well.

[peanut]

"We recently had one member receive an email (at his private email address) . . . . . We are looking into how his email address was obtained, we don't believe it has ever been published in any post on this forum, but are researching to confirm that."

I wouldn't waste too much time looking. Sure, this member's email addy COULD have been obtained from this site - - but the the chances of that are probably small. The reality is that his info is probably "out there" on so many other venues that it will be impossible to say for sure how spammers got it. Does (s)he use facebook? Do they tweet? Tiktok? Do they use ANY other social media? How many other websites/chat groups/blogs have they registered at? Have they bought anything ever online that required them to give out their personal email addy and/or phone number? Harvesting personal info and buying/selling/trading it is so common and ubiquitous it buggers the imagination. Anyone that does not know that or understand it has no business hooking their computer up to the internet.

And as for
"CURRENTLY ACTIVE USERS: 707 (18 MEMBERS AND 689 GUESTS)
All of those guests are "not members". A few are people who just haven't yet joined the forum but are looking at posts",
you make it sound like virtually all of the "guests" are spammers. Huh? Doubtful. Sure, some probably are. Some probably are acting (or trying to act) nefariously. But most? Probably just lots of lurkers and/or people who simply stop by to see what's going on. I stop by at least once every day - sometimes several times a day - but only bother to log in if I want to post something. So I, usually, am one of those "not members" that show up in the stats most times.

All that being said - - reminders are a good thing. Thanks.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by peanut

"We recently had one member receive an email (at his private email address) . . . . . We are looking into how his email address was obtained, we don't believe it has ever been published in any post on this forum, but are researching to confirm that."

I wouldn't waste too much time looking. Sure, this member's email addy COULD have been obtained from this site - - but the the chances of that are probably small. The reality is that his info is probably "out there" on so many other venues that it will be impossible to say for sure how spammers got it. Does (s)he use facebook? Do they tweet? Tiktok? Do they use ANY other social media? How many other websites/chat groups/blogs have they registered at? Have they bought anything ever online that required them to give out their personal email addy and/or phone number? Harvesting personal info and buying/selling/trading it is so common and ubiquitous it buggers the imagination. Anyone that does not know that or understand it has no business hooking their computer up to the internet.

And as for
"CURRENTLY ACTIVE USERS: 707 (18 MEMBERS AND 689 GUESTS)
All of those guests are "not members". A few are people who just haven't yet joined the forum but are looking at posts",
you make it sound like virtually all of the "guests" are spammers. Huh? Doubtful. Sure, some probably are. Some probably are acting (or trying to act) nefariously. But most? Probably just lots of lurkers and/or people who simply stop by to see what's going on. I stop by at least once every day - sometimes several times a day - but only bother to log in if I want to post something. So I, usually, am one of those "not members" that show up in the stats most times.

All that being said - - reminders are a good thing. Thanks.

Maybe you read something I didn't but I got nothing like "virtually all of the guests are spammers. Huh?" Of course most don't read every post and see the "spam" prevented from coming on the forum as others do - and realize the number of attempts made to access the membership. The post was a friendly, needed reminder that there are "things" out there in the web world so be careful. Heck, my DD, in IT, just warned us (DW and myself) again today about the many, many scams going on in every format and to be careful - this after her entire team was warned by a very large security organization. Better safe than sorry, complacent or uninformed.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by sourdough

Maybe you read something I didn't but I got nothing like "virtually all of the guests are spammers. Huh?" Of course most don't read every post and see the "spam" prevented from coming on the forum as others do - and realize the number of attempts made to access the memb smership.

The post, as worded, made a very strong implication that all but a few "guests" were/are crooks.

"All of those guests are "not members". A few are people who just haven't yet joined the forum but are looking at posts. A few are "bots" from Google, FaceBook, Twitter and a few marketing firms.

A few, as defined by the Google Language Dictionary, means:
1. a small number
2. used to emphasize how small a number is

So, of the 689 "guests" mentioned in the post, most (virtually all - by implication) were/are crooks, according to the post. Or do you think "a few" means 60%? 80%? 95%?

You are correct, many (most?) do not realize the assault forums such as this take from spammers.

I do. I was the administrator for my Carpenters Union (my local chapters) web page and forum. In fact I designed them (the web page and the forum), implemented them and administered them for over seven years before I retired. It was a lot of work sifting thru the posts and culling out the fake ones and the fake registration requests. Still - I take exception to the idea that only "a few" guests are legitimate and almost everyone else are crooks. It is simply not true (in my experience) and is disingenuous.

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by peanut

The post, as worded, made a very strong implication that all but a few "guests" were/are crooks.

"All of those guests are "not members". A few are people who just haven't yet joined the forum but are looking at posts. A few are "bots" from Google, FaceBook, Twitter and a few marketing firms.

A few, as defined by the Google Language Dictionary, means:
1. a small number
2. used to emphasize how small a number is

So, of the 689 "guests" mentioned in the post, most (virtually all - by implication) were/are crooks, according to the post. Or do you think "a few" means 60%? 80%? 95%?

You are correct, many (most?) do not realize the assault forums such as this take from spammers.

I do. I was the administrator for my Carpenters Union (my local chapters) web page and forum. In fact I designed them (the web page and the forum), implemented them and administered them for over seven years before I retired. It was a lot of work sifting thru the posts and culling out the fake ones and the fake registration requests. Still - I take exception to the idea that only "a few" guests are legitimate and almost everyone else are crooks. It is simply not true (in my experience) and is disingenuous.

First, thank you for putting words in my mouth and telling me what I "really intended to say"..... You more or less "missed the mark" on interpreting my intent, but.....

When there are 658 BOTS on the forum, whether it's "a few" or "more than a few" or "maybe most" or "substantially fewer than most" or whatever "google definition" you choose to assign to "MY WORDS" not to "YOUR WORDS", is pretty much academic.

When there is "ONE BOT" gleaning a member's information and that member is potentially exposed to nefarious activity using data found on this forum, then "ONE IS TOO DAMN MANY".....

So, without going further into "what you think I intended to say" the POINT I WAS MAKING is that members of this forum need to pay attention to what they post and also pay attention to what they might receive "off the forum" in other methods they use to access the internet because ONE IS TOO MANY when it affects you.

Again, thanks for telling me what I intended to say.... Next time I post something, maybe I should get your approval before posting ???? NOPE !!!!!

[jasin1]

Originally Posted by peanut

The post, as worded, made a very strong implication that all but a few "guests" were/are crooks.

"All of those guests are "not members". A few are people who just haven't yet joined the forum but are looking at posts. A few are "bots" from Google, FaceBook, Twitter and a few marketing firms.

A few, as defined by the Google Language Dictionary, means:
1. a small number
2. used to emphasize how small a number is

So, of the 689 "guests" mentioned in the post, most (virtually all - by implication) were/are crooks, according to the post. Or do you think "a few" means 60%? 80%? 95%?

You are correct, many (most?) do not realize the assault forums such as this take from spammers.

I do. I was the administrator for my Carpenters Union (my local chapters) web page and forum. In fact I designed them (the web page and the forum), implemented them and administered them for over seven years before I retired. It was a lot of work sifting thru the posts and culling out the fake ones and the fake registration requests. Still - I take exception to the idea that only "a few" guests are legitimate and almost everyone else are crooks. It is simply not true (in my experience) and is disingenuous.

this is EXACTLY how i’d expect a bot to respond ….hmmmm

[Max23]

SERIOUSLY?? He was just trying to put out a friendly reminder to all of us to "be careful". I do not believe he intended to suggest that any particular number are this or a particular number are that. Maybe the verbiage could have been different as in "some" are this and "some" are that, would that be better? No numbers or percent's were given, it was just a friendly reminder to those who are more easily taken by scammers because it does happen. Most ALL posts can be picked apart for how they are worded. This one as well I'm sure. But really? Take it for how it's intended. Just a friendly reminder.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by peanut

The post, as worded, made a very strong implication that all but a few "guests" were/are crooks.

"All of those guests are "not members". A few are people who just haven't yet joined the forum but are looking at posts. A few are "bots" from Google, FaceBook, Twitter and a few marketing firms.

A few, as defined by the Google Language Dictionary, means:
1. a small number
2. used to emphasize how small a number is

So, of the 689 "guests" mentioned in the post, most (virtually all - by implication) were/are crooks, according to the post. Or do you think "a few" means 60%? 80%? 95%?

You are correct, many (most?) do not realize the assault forums such as this take from spammers.

I do. I was the administrator for my Carpenters Union (my local chapters) web page and forum. In fact I designed them (the web page and the forum), implemented them and administered them for over seven years before I retired. It was a lot of work sifting thru the posts and culling out the fake ones and the fake registration requests. Still - I take exception to the idea that only "a few" guests are legitimate and almost everyone else are crooks. It is simply not true (in my experience) and is disingenuous.

I don't want to get into a back and forth with you but your comments are still inaccurate and in fact offensive. I have no idea what you did or didn't do or know in your capenter's union (and don't care) but I do know it had/has nothing to do with this website.

As long as we're playing with the dictionary;

In fact, the warning of the possibility of a person with nefarious intentions is in fact warranted and they are there. A "few", "small number" could mean anything and you cannot quantify that, only question and nitpick for some unknown reason. More importantly;

You say the post was "disingenuous". Let's look at that:

From Merriam Webster: : "lacking in candor
also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING" (their capitalization).

From Encyclopedia Britannica: " not truly honest or sincere giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere."

From Macmillan Dictionary: "pretending to be honest or sincere."

I could go on but I hope you get the picture. Why you made the accusation over a simple, honest headsup only you know. The post was made with good intentions and I suspect virtually all of the members took it that way but you. Enjoy your Sunday and keep that dictionary close at hand.

[wiredgeorge]

Originally Posted by sourdough

[/B][/COLOR]


I don't want to get into a back and forth with you but your comments are still inaccurate and in fact offensive. I have no idea what you did or didn't do or know in your capenter's union (and don't care) but I do know it had/has nothing to do with this website.

As long as we're playing with the dictionary;

In fact, the warning of the possibility of a person with nefarious intentions is in fact warranted and they are there. A "few", "small number" could mean anything and you cannot quantify that, only question and nitpick for some unknown reason. More importantly;

You say the post was "disingenuous". Let's look at that:

From Merriam Webster: : "lacking in candor
also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING" (their capitalization).

From Encyclopedia Britannica: " not truly honest or sincere giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere."

From Macmillan Dictionary: "pretending to be honest or sincere."

I could go on but I hope you get the picture. Why you made the accusation over a simple, honest headsup only you know. The post was made with good intentions and I suspect virtually all of the members took it that way but you. Enjoy your Sunday and keep that dictionary close at hand.

Dang Danny, the fella Peanut has really gone out of his way to ruffle feathers. I own a couple of websites and administer my church's website and guess I fully understand the intent of John's heads up and don't understand Peanut's need to be contentious. I am also a member of the popular Texas Gun Talk forum and right this minute:

Total: 378 (members: 133, guests: 245)

I can guess that "guests" category may fall into the bunch that John referred to and probably some percentage may be bad actors. When I built my biz website almost 20 years ago the country was a bit different place and I now wish I had not put a phone number on it. I was kind of young (well not really young) but innocent and junk phone calls were not yet a thing or to the extent they are now. BTW: Peanut quoted the "google dictionary"? Not a fan of google as I think they are part of what is wrong in the world today... that is just a personal feeling and don't ask me why...

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by wiredgeorge

Dang Danny, the fella Peanut has really gone out of his way to ruffle feathers. I own a couple of websites and administer my church's website and guess I fully understand the intent of John's heads up and don't understand Peanut's need to be contentious. I am also a member of the popular Texas Gun Talk forum and right this minute:

Total: 378 (members: 133, guests: 245)

I can guess that "guests" category may fall into the bunch that John referred to and probably some percentage may be bad actors. When I built my biz website almost 20 years ago the country was a bit different place and I now wish I had not put a phone number on it. I was kind of young (well not really young) but innocent and junk phone calls were not yet a thing or to the extent they are now. BTW: Peanut quoted the "google dictionary"? Not a fan of google as I think they are part of what is wrong in the world today... that is just a personal feeling and don't ask me why...

I'm with you on Google. This website, like the Texas Gun Talk forum, has lots of "guests" at any given time generally outnumbering members by a large margin. Those guests may or may not be benign yet again they could be "harvesting" information from our members. And unlike our world of 20 years ago, there are a LOT of bad actors out there looking for a way to zap good folks. I've had it happen to me a couple of times. In our busy lives most of us get on a forum like this and think it's perfectly safe....and it is but a lot goes on to keep it that way. Although unlikely it's possible something might slip by and an unwary member then gets zipped someway. It's that way on every forum and every website. A timely, friendly....helpful heads up is something I appreciate. Others, maybe "other", seem to have an issue with folks trying to help.

[peanut]

Sourdough made a point of questioning my use of the term "virtually all" in my first post. I tried to explain - obviously not to anyone's pleasure (anyone that responded) - how and why I used that expression. People don't like dictionary definitions? So be it. You don't like my reasoning? I don't care.

He continued with comments about how most don't see the spam posts/attempts that are prevented by the mods. I provided info about my experience with websites and forums to show that I do understand the issues - - in vain, apparently - and why my experience brought me to my conclusion and comment. He, at least, disregards it condescendingly, "I have no idea what you did or didn't do . . . . (and I don't care) . . . . as though any experience I may have is irrelevant to any questions regarding the administration or moderation of a forum. I guess, to his mind, mod'ing a forum for over seven years means nothing if that experience leads me to a different analysis. I don't care.

Those comments above are my explanation of my original post the response to Sourdough's. People don't like my reasoning? Tough. People disagree with me? Tough. People think I try to "put words" in their mouth? Perhaps I was being too literal. But - words have meaning. Some people actually use dictionary definitions to understand what they read. Be careful how you phrase things.

Sourdough conveniently forgot the last paragraph of my original post when he attacked my thoughts and reasoning. It was "All that being said - - reminders are a good thing. Thanks." Perhaps I should have been more adulatory.

As I stated at the beginning - you don't like my reasoning? I don't care.
You belittle my experience (that is pertinent to the discussion at hand)? So be it.
You think my comments are "still inaccurate"? You are wrong. (but you are entitled to your own opinion)
I am not trying to "ruffle" feathers.
My reasoning and opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. I stick by them. And I am not going away. But this will be my last post in this thread. Don't like me? Suck it up and deal with it.

[JRTJH]

As the OP for this "caution, be careful what you post and watch emails you might get off the forum that reference this forum because members have recently reported getting SPAM in their private email accounts using their membership here".....

So, I'm closing the thread. the point has been made for members to stay alert, that was the SOLE intention of my post.

Thread closed.