Solved What's up with not being able to post simple replies?

[sonic8]

Probably:
Code: "LDAP://dc=yourdomain, dc=com"looks like a URL to the crude regex parser

And the regex would be correct because it actually *is* an URL.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I return to the issue that it is textual content.

@HavingDatabaseRelations - as an experiment, can you try to post the exact message AS TEXT that you previously screen-captured, but just before posting find every instance of LDAP in that text and make that L_D_A_P just to verify that - per Dave's suggestion - it is pre-screening your input. This is a problem with XenForo software that is our site's page engine. Most of us don't have any viewpoint into the actual code so can't tell what it is doing unless the vendor publishes something.

EDITED BY THE_DOC_MAN: Instead of LDAP to L_D_A_P, make it "L<space>D<space>A<space>P<space>:" Sonic8 is correct that syntactically it DOES appear as a URL, but the spaces would break up the continuity. Underscores would not.

 

[Gasman]

Wouldn't it be more the :// ?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Possibly. But now we have reached the stage of second-guessing at what point XenForo says "IS/IS NOT" a URL.

 

[HavingDatabaseRelations]

Thanks for the help, everyone. I'm gobsmacked at the amount of resources you all have had to devote to this issue instead of my error when trying to pull an email address out of AD for a logged in user. Can anyone tell me what thread count I need to have to get past this level of scrutiny?

 

[Gasman]

You will need to be VERY patient, which I do not think is your strong suit.
I also responded to your crosspost.

 

[cheekybuddha]

Can anyone tell me what thread count I need to have to get past this level of scrutiny?

I think it sits at 100 currently

 

[cheekybuddha]

because it actually *is* an URL.

Is it not actually a URI ? (see post #41)

Joking aside, my guess is with @Gasman, that the pattern just matches on the '://'.

I'll test again when i get back to computer.

 

[cheekybuddha]

OK, so it seems as if it is purely dependent on finding ://

Trying explicitly:

results in:

Whereas simply doing:

is OK:

Using a resource but without completing the double forward slash is also OK:

The post goes through:

Curiously, getting the colon and slashes back to front also triggers the blocker:

like so:

So, @HavingDatabaseRelations, it really isn't anything personal against you - it's a PITA for everyone!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thanks, Dave. To trace that down, you must be part bloodhound. (Unlike your avatar.)

 

[Gasman]

OK, so it seems as if it is purely dependent on finding ://

Trying explicitly:
View attachment 119271
results in:
View attachment 119272

Whereas simply doing:
View attachment 119273
is OK:
View attachment 119274

Using a resource but without completing the double forward slash is also OK:
View attachment 119275
The post goes through:
View attachment 119276

Curiously, getting the colon and slashes back to front also triggers the blocker:
View attachment 119277
like so:
View attachment 119278


So, @HavingDatabaseRelations, it really isn't anything personal against you - it's a PITA for everyone!

And being able to recognise a link when you post one?

 

[cheekybuddha]

And being able to recognise a link when you post one?

How do you mean?

 

[Gasman]

How do you mean?

Well there was a link in what the O/P posted, but they did not recognise that fact?
They have solved the issue that re-started all this, over on the crossposted thread now anyway.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have had that oops message myself now and again, and I have no problems suppling links as I am over the post count.

 

[cheekybuddha]

Well there was a link in what the O/P posted, but they did not recognise that fact?

Yes, look at the image of the text the OP was trying to post. It was contains the LDAP url, albeit within quote marks.

I have had that oops message myself now and again

I am sure there are other criteria in play as well.

 

[cheekybuddha]

Well there was a link in what the O/P posted,

Oops, not enough coffee yet and i dislexically swapped 'there' and 'was' as i read it.

Agreed, the forum software does make it very difficult for new posters

 

[Gasman]

TBH, I think 100 is a little high? 50 or maybe even 25 would be better for new posters.
Not sure a spammer would hang around that long, and I am always reporting spammers as well.

 

[Jon]

I cannot remember the exact reasons why I chose 100 posts, but it might be due to hackers using old accounts for spamming. Most user accounts have less than 100 posts.

 

[GPGeorge]

I cannot remember the exact reasons why I chose 100 posts, but it might be due to hackers using old accounts for spamming. Most user accounts have less than 100 posts.

That makes sense. I also think that hackers/spammers can work in teams, setting up accounts that lie dormant for a while until they are exploited.

 

[Jon]

That makes sense. I also think that hackers/spammers can work in teams, setting up accounts that lie dormant for a while until they are exploited.

That is exactly what they do, because the dormant user doesn't notice posts that they didn't make.

 

[cheekybuddha]

I also think that hackers/spammers can work in teams,

It's more likely to be bots that they set up rather than actual people sitting there doing the posting.

It would be cleverer if you could whitelist internal links (www.access-programmers.co.uk/...) from the blocker though.

We often ask new posters not to tack on to old threads but start a new one and post a link back to the old one as reference - that gets the generic 'Oops!'