Vetting of e-mail addresses for posting

Many news organizations have a registration to post on their pages. After one registers they then send an e-mail to the registered address and require a reply before the registrant can post. I suggest that Logos do the same. I suspect that some of the troll posts would go back to a common address. In this manner those who are attempting to flood the forum from what are supposedly different addresses could be discovered.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ralph Mauch

After one registers they then send an e-mail to the registered address and require a reply before the registrant can post.

[Y] But I thought that only those who have an account could use this forum, or is that only in my dreams? [:D]

Rich DeRuiter

Many news organizations have a registration to post on their pages. After one registers they then send an e-mail to the registered address and require a reply before the registrant can post. I suggest that Logos do the same. I suspect that some of the troll posts would go back to a common address. In this manner those who are attempting to flood the forum from what are supposedly different addresses could be discovered.

I agree that it would be great to do something.

But this probably wouldn't solve all the problems. I personally have 5 email addresses that I monitor regularly, e.g. If I ran out of those and wanted to come under another name I could still get a free email address at a dozen places on the internet and continue to post as much as I want.

Most ways of keeping out those that are unwelcome only make it a bit harder for them to come back (not impossible), and also make it harder for good folks to join in a discussion, or ask their first question.

Andy

Many news organizations have a registration to post on their pages. After one registers they then send an e-mail to the registered address and require a reply before the registrant can post. I suggest that Logos do the same. I suspect that some of the troll posts would go back to a common address. In this manner those who are attempting to flood the forum from what are supposedly different addresses could be discovered.

I agree with this. Some of the posts (particularly in the past week or so) have been toxic.

I noted elsewhere that Bob P. questioned whether these forums could be successfully moderated. Presumably banning users by IP address would be effective in some measure.

I know this will be less popular, but, given the nature of this forum (i.e. primarily users from a Christian tradition), I wonder if we should be required to register a brief biography with an approximate location.

There is such a thing as 'internet tough' which, in my experience, thrives on anonymity.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265761#Comment_265761

After one registers they then send an e-mail to the registered address and require a reply before the registrant can post.

But I thought that only those who have an account could use this forum, or is that only in my dreams?

Yes, but under the current program one user address could have several user names. All that would be necessary is to sign out from one account and back in under another. Just for a test I did this myself once. Registrants should be allowed only one registered user per e-mail address (I realize this may be a problem when a husband and wife use the same e-mail -- sorry, but I think it necessary). If they attempt to post under multiple screen names from one address they are likely up to no good.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265763#Comment_265763

But this probably wouldn't solve all the problems. I personally have 5 email addresses that I monitor regularly, e.g. If I ran out of those and wanted to come under another name I could still get a free email address at a dozen places on the internet and continue to post as much as I want.

Most ways of keeping out those that are unwelcome only make it a bit harder for them to come back (not impossible), and also make it harder for good folks to join in a discussion, or ask their first question.

True, but I want to make it as difficult as possible for those who would disrupt the forum. Let them be required to register a dozen new e-mail addresses -- and ban every one of them. If it were regular e-mail, each post would have a header which could be examined. I believe it is possible to trace it back to the actual machine through the header. The machine itself could be banned.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265768#Comment_265768

Not to disagree with your intent, George, but machine-tracking relative to emails hasn't been do-able for quite some time. But Logos does have the Logos installation that is machine specific (similar to MS and Apple).

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265768#Comment_265768

True, but I want to make it as difficult as possible for those who would disrupt the forum. Let them be required to register a dozen new e-mail addresses -- and ban every one of them. If it were regular e-mail, each post would have a header which could be examined. I believe it is possible to trace it back to the actual machine through the header. The machine itself could be banned.

You're talking about looking at the IP address in the email headers, what would be even better would be to check the MAC address of the sending computer (each computer has a unique MAC address). While are ways around this (post from different public computers, like in a library, would be the easiest), it does require much more effort on the part of the disrupter.

The downside is that it's not likely this forum software has the capability to do either of those things, though of the two the IP address of the email header would be the easiest to look at. If the forum software can't flag or filter IP addresses, these would have to be checked manually by someone - that means less money going into resource and software development. But it may need to be done for a while to keep out the current wave of trolls.

I'm quite sure there are folks at Logos contemplating their options about this. They stand to loose big time if the forums loose out to trolls, or if a portion of their customers walk away from the forums and start calling tech support instead.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265778#Comment_265778

But it may need to be done for a while to keep out the current wave of trolls.

I suspect that what we have is ONE troll who thinks he is too cute by half.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265790#Comment_265790

George ... if you Google the phrase 'Two Dixie Cups, A String, A Wing, And A Prayer' and then select the entries going back to late 2010, you'll quickly see the problem. Compare the name of the Chris entries to where someone quoted Abi Gail. Kind of illustrates how the forum software database is structured.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265797#Comment_265797

George ... if you Google the phrase 'Two Dixie Cups, A String, A Wing, And A Prayer' and then select the entries going back to late 2010, you'll quickly see the problem. Compare the name of the Chris entries to where someone quoted Abi Gail. Kind of illustrates how the forum software database is structured.

Apparently you know more about this than I. I miss the point.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265799#Comment_265799

That phrase is in the current Chris Thompson entries. If you look at the 2010 Google-search entries, you'll find that the screen name 'Chris Thompson' has overlayed Abi Gail's entries (best seen where someone quotes Abi Gail ... the screen name doesn't match the actual post).

My guess is that Logos is going to quickly have a legal problem, if I'm not mistaken. If not that, they're certainly going to have a customer problem since Google will have already have stored your false entry (and your reputation).

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265801#Comment_265801

My guess is that Logos is going to quickly have a legal problem, if I'm not mistaken. If not that, they're certainly going to have a customer problem since Google will have already have stored your false entry (and your reputation).

<Sarcasm>Joy to the world. </sarcasm>

tom

Hi George, I did not see your thread until after I posted mine. Because emails accounts can be set up in a matter of seconds, I suggested that Logos use their MAC address(es). There is a limit on how many computers, ipads, smart phones, etc... a person has access to.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265808#Comment_265808

Hi George, I did not see your thread until after I posted mine. Because emails accounts can be set up in a matter of seconds, I suggested that Logos use their MAC address(es). There is a limit on how many computers, ipads, smart phones, etc... a person has access to.

I think yours is an excellent suggestion. Even if they go to the library to post, they will be put to more trouble than if they can sit in their parents' basement in their underwear to post.

EDIT: One thing I would change in your suggestion -- there are some posts that are so egregious as to be summarily banned with no warning.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265801#Comment_265801

That phrase is in the current Chris Thompson entries. If you look at the 2010 Google-search entries, you'll find that the screen name 'Chris Thompson' has overlayed Abi Gail's entries (best seen where someone quotes Abi Gail ... the screen name doesn't match the actual post).

My guess is that Logos is going to quickly have a legal problem, if I'm not mistaken. If not that, they're certainly going to have a customer problem since Google will have already have stored your false entry (and your reputation).

Yes, now I see what you mean. Have all of Abi Gail's posts been highjacked?

EDIT: I've noticed her absence of late.

2nd EDIT: Or was Abi Gail a troll as well? I noted a certain tone to much posted under that name.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265815#Comment_265815

You'll also notice the spoofed post counts don't change from spoof to spoof. I'd be curious how the database software operates. If anything, today has been an interesting test-case for Bob (and demo'ing my own incorrect judgment about forums).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265832#Comment_265832

Um, DMB...aren't you Abi Gail? I recall Abi Gail having the christiansedona link at the bottom of her (his?) posts.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265850#Comment_265850

Um, DMB...aren't you Abi Gail? I recall Abi Gail having the christiansedona link at the bottom of her (his?) posts.

No, that's not Abi Gail. It is Denise Barnhardt.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265832#Comment_265832

You'll also notice the spoofed post counts don't change from spoof to spoof. I'd be curious how the database software operates. If anything, today has been an interesting test-case for Bob (and demo'ing my own incorrect judgment about forums).

The only way I can think that this would happen would be if the poster created a new account for each post, but then it would simply begin at 0 and not contain any previous posts.

Wes Saad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265808#Comment_265808

Hi George, I did not see your thread until after I posted mine. Because emails accounts can be set up in a matter of seconds, I suggested that Logos use their MAC address(es). There is a limit on how many computers, ipads, smart phones, etc... a person has access to.

But how would you obtain the MAC address? It's usually not passed along very far (I think I saw someone say something about the MAC address being passed in email headers? Not any headers that I've seen... And at any rate, no email comes from a user when creating an account on any site I've ever been to.) Plus, the MAC address is pretty easy to spoof - far easier than, say, an IP address (though with proxies and such that wouldn't be hard to vary), so trying to filter out by MAC address wouldn't work.

Blocking by IP address also wouldn't work. Proxies provide too many alternatives. And even without proxies, most ISP's do not automatically provide static IP's. My IP is semi-static, but I never know when it will change next. So say Logos does block a particular IP address but it turns out to be a dynamic IP and someone else just happens to try to access community.logos.com, having been randomly assigned the blocked IP by their ISP. Unlikely, yes, but let's remember what Murphy had to say in his law on such things. If someone is a chronic abuser and appears to have an ip address that doesn't fluctuate, it would be worth blocking, but that couldn't be counted on all the time.

So requiring email for registration is about all that can be done. It's not perfect, but it does make things more annoying for the person trying to troll.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265869#Comment_265869

Hi George, I did not see your thread until after I posted mine. Because emails accounts can be set up in a matter of seconds, I suggested that Logos use their MAC address(es). There is a limit on how many computers, ipads, smart phones, etc... a person has access to.

But how would you obtain the MAC address? It's usually not passed along very far (I think I saw someone say something about the MAC address being passed in email headers? Not any headers that I've seen... And at any rate, no email comes from a user when creating an account on any site I've ever been to.) Plus, the MAC address is pretty easy to spoof - far easier than, say, an IP address (though with proxies and such that wouldn't be hard to vary), so trying to filter out by MAC address wouldn't work.

Blocking by IP address also wouldn't work. Proxies provide too many alternatives. And even without proxies, most ISP's do not automatically provide static IP's. My IP is semi-static, but I never know when it will change next. So say Logos does block a particular IP address but it turns out to be a dynamic IP and someone else just happens to try to access community.logos.com, having been randomly assigned the blocked IP by their ISP. Unlikely, yes, but let's remember what Murphy had to say in his law on such things. If someone is a chronic abuser and appears to have an ip address that doesn't fluctuate, it would be worth blocking, but that couldn't be counted on all the time.

So requiring email for registration is about all that can be done. It's not perfect, but it does make things more annoying for the person trying to troll.

Let's examine that. Here is the header from your post.

From Logos Bible Software Forums - Automated Email Sun Jul 3 14:07:13 2011
X-Apparently-To: XXXXXXXXXXXX via 98.136.164.163; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 14:07:15 -0700
Return-Path: <forums@logos.com>
Received-SPF: neutral (216.57.209.252 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of logos.com)
X-YMailISG: LNqMsWMWLDs4agfdIYXo0oZzB3w5XAVNpayIh9rrZ3PecIxw
5xQysBAVmyrycoXNe3j_Gxxa6o5bA5NA04up0t7JL1Sf8L_89Gh6V7Pe6BKO
wxFSlF4qdVMGp5dn_hHdkO3X3vbWovX4JzliYdHLCBz0qPeBV.AzbSwhKq_0
Jr6TnXypFljbR6pr3FEu8c9p32D2MSd0_4sd5nSC.OG1Ws8a0K7pMh6ZYCnL
4.ABt.3KfgHT7xWYLVB_maDGU2.TNLCP8XWMIdAzLEr6uPMyYVw0terA82pH
aUU83PB1t2IJcYv128YHiSpC75BAp_QgGTT7V5B8UplMNp0HnDfm3o.zxdYF
RsrkySZqxn5wgJ3gxVDXNQEYsvqArTF8x44rX6xwZlAhrKn8xqAjR7XdZs5C
safHF8wTcOtQ10OfBhqYXP5Mg7slfaUSKUgXIyKaF3P4aeroHf9GFYZYoZuW
LkWueODHv5rf1SVtKhHcjrfUoTlozS29rob8z8q8ORs.GkimdwQpG82M9Ggh
wzVQwKTO.wZxHUG2cIAWIlFSV9BrMUeVCCjzgvUrJAsbWAm62YbUq4DrCIRP
ZTFWIH0HEILdfP5g1GO8vXA1SACPPquZJ.Q39LTUjwdxqqKHoW3zlOUkhvhG
NwLNSttoHtltwFltTwJCbkDs8sSYzE_PK5omlZmT_ouazIy1PE4EatPRBvc8
Q5O9ZPnvXxLLWznXiqbTGcClN87Lk03RBONB2TklzMcVmZ.DrmqEVOOYcV4d
vpQH5Or7zVYtn.cGQY0SLdEyeiXNmgEDsNYyqKxFEMR99adHzm92kintWlyZ
wh17a0mgNdUkuoSpkby2DCUcFN0E7MBmgqNEa6Zoz_djp5aaiSc3stRttTup
oPmKri__6zrA0L_YM2pehc053eCAb02XzMxolONelQh2shICepnjNuTJ3Oxy
P5Lqswrj29HJoqp2TsR_vGenKWxI2RE9_AP2k64ttMbKwqPUui3VJSwdTv94
HR1zA9fpZuU3iHju6b5Sfz3bibdOr7T5F6n3vyboqIYTxl1pr9jSLPh85o1R
X-Originating-IP: [216.57.209.252]
Authentication-Results: mta1265.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=logos.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=logos.com; dkim=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO MX02.lrscorp.net) (216.57.209.252)
by mta1265.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 14:07:15 -0700
Received: from adam ([192.168.12.199]) by MX02.lrscorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514);
Sun, 3 Jul 2011 14:07:13 -0700
Content-Base: http://community.logos.com
Content-Location: http://community.logos.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Logos Bible Software Forums - Automated Email" <forums@logos.com>
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: 3 Jul 2011 14:07:13 -0700
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFZldHRpbmcgb2YgZS1tYWlsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBmb3IgcG9zdGluZw==?=
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Return-Path: forums@logos.com
Message-ID: <MX02X3cf3ednHM3SOlb0000c75f@MX02.lrscorp.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2011 21:07:13.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E693890:01CC39C5]
Content-Length: 4102

I don't know which of those is significant, but I imagine the folks at Logos can figure it out. If there had to be an e-mail reply somewhere in the process this would be available to examine so I think it is do-able.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265866#Comment_265866

Yep ... I removed my name, since at least for the time being 'anyone can be anyone' and there's no telling what 'I'll' say. And I don't want to have to constantly scan the Logos forums to see what meanness has transpired this time. And these pages stick around for a long time and are happily indexed every which way. Best to err on the sort-of safe side.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265874#Comment_265874

George ... don't know if you want your email address showing that's buried in the header (or maybe you edited it already).

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265887#Comment_265887

George ... don't know if you want your email address showing that's buried in the header (or maybe you edited it already).

Oops ! I didn't think about the actual address showing. I'll take care of it NOW ! Thanks for warning me.

Wes Saad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265874#Comment_265874

Let's examine that. Here is the header from your post.

First, that's not headers from my post, that's headers from the email Logos sent you notifying you of my post. The info in the headers has nothing to do with the message I posted. The IP address points to servers in Bellingham (other than the 192.168.x.x address, which points to a private network), rather far from any IP's I'd be assigned here in Panama City.

Second, the IP address is not the MAC address. Most of the items you highlighted are IP addresses. The last one is something different, I'm not sure what SMTPSVC is, but it's neither an IP address nor a MAC address, so those headers are no help when it comes to finding the MAC address.

Jacob Hantla

Seems like having a requirement to have purchased a Logos resource to post in all but a "purchasing questions" forum would be reasonable. This would keep Trolls from posting...but may scare away new customers.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265919#Comment_265919

Let's examine that. Here is the header from your post.

First, that's not headers from my post, that's headers from the email Logos sent you notifying you of my post. The info in the headers has nothing to do with the message I posted. The IP address points to servers in Bellingham (other than the 192.168.x.x address, which points to a private network), rather far from any IP's I'd be assigned here in Panama City.

Second, the IP address is not the MAC address. Most of the items you highlighted are IP addresses. The last one is something different, I'm not sure what SMTPSVC is, but it's neither an IP address nor a MAC address, so those headers are no help when it comes to finding the MAC address.

First, it is from your post. Second, it is the header. Third, I didn't say that it reflected your MAC address, but the principle is the same. If there is an e-mail component to registering to post on the forum, Logos would have access to the person's MAC address and could preserve it in case the need arose to block the poster.

Wes Saad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265951#Comment_265951

First, it is from your post. Second, it is the header. Third, I didn't say that it reflected your MAC address, but the principle is the same. If there is an e-mail component to registering to post on the forum, Logos would have access to the person's MAC address and could preserve it in case the need arose to block the poster.

Not trying to be feisty here (I've avoided the theology debates only to jump into one on tech!?), but the email header you posted is from Logos and the header itself contains no info about me or my post. The content of the message is notifying you that a new post was submitted to the thread, that's the only thing the message has to do with me. All info in the mail header relates only to Logos and their mail server. And the most it gives is IP info. A MAC address looks something like 01-23-45-67-89-ab.

As for the email component to register, the most any site ever does is has a user input their email address and they receive a confirmation email with a link to click. No site these days require users to send an email to complete registration, so Logos will never receive email headers from a user. Even if headers included a MAC address (which they don't) Logos does not get an email during registration, so they will not have mail headers from users that register. Even if they do require a response email, they are not guaranteed to get any info on the user. Just tested this with gmail - sent myself an email from gmail and it did not have my IP address anywhere in the header. It had gmail's, but not mine. So anyone using web-based email (which is most people) may not have their IP info in the header. I think web mail sites used to include a user's IP addy in the header, but evidently not anymore, at least not Google.

As noted, there isn't a simple way for Logos to obtain MAC address info from users, and even if they could, MAC addresses are one of the easiest things to spoof. An IP address is much more reliable, but has its own limitations which make blocking by IP problematic.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265954#Comment_265954

Not trying to be feisty here (I've avoided the theology debates only to jump into one on tech!?), but the email header you posted is from Logos and the header itself contains no info about me or my post. The content of the message is notifying you that a new post was submitted to the thread, that's the only thing the message has to do with me. All info in the mail header relates only to Logos and their mail server. And the most it gives is IP info. A MAC address looks something like 01-23-45-67-89-ab.

I've already told you that I am aware of that fact so why are you attempting to be difficult? [li]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265955#Comment_265955

Obviously more spoofing.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/265954#Comment_265954

Well, as a minimum, you DO have to wonder about whoever wrote the software that would allow duplicate 'handles'. Not to be too obnoxious, but that's pretty basic. My guess is they turned the flag off for whatever reason. And it remaining off normally indicates there's a bigger problem that had to be solved.

So, they apparently knew it was a pre-existing problem. I now understand why Stephen was using a over-lengthy explanation for what appears to be a rather egregious oddity. And It kind of bothers me that they let Stephen 'swing in the wind' without really owning up to it. I do have to give Stephen credit though. Kind of like the newsman assigned to do the hurricane piece.

I guess I'm a bit disappointed, pretty much having 'egg all over my face'. I assigned the issue to Christian behavior difficulties, but instead the root issue was poor programming. They then launched a denomination-specific marketing program, knowing they couldn't manage their forum. What did they expect?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266029#Comment_266029

Logos has a genuine difficulty: they need to keep the forums open so that potential Logos users can ask questions to know if Logos will meet their needs. Therefore, requiring that one have a Logos base package would not work.

Logos appeals to many who are not computer savvy, so adding adding an extra step to registration or posting would dilute the "open to everyone" atmosphere.

Auto-screening for inflammatory posts would be difficult in that there are many innocent foot-in-mouth posts that sound inflammatory but if given a gentle reply will not escalate.

We are talking about a handful of users. If Logos were to close the flaw that allowed duplicating other peoples' handles etc. and were to return to closing off threads that go ballistic, I think things could return to "normal". I would trust Stephen to distinguish between reports of abuse that show a thread should be watched carefully vs. those that need killed or dropped.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266099#Comment_266099

MJ ... I don't doubt what you're saying. It's just that the entry just above yours isn't George. I now watch the counts with assumption a low count may not be for real (which means all the new people). I've even checked some of the low count people to see how in the world their question could be asked.

Then, if you click on Michael's counts, you get all the Michael's in the system (not just 'Michael'). Clearly the programming is pretty naive.

I suppose this is all just water under the bridge for Logos. I'm kind of surprised.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266099#Comment_266099

Logos has a genuine difficulty: they need to keep the forums open so that potential Logos users can ask questions to know if Logos will meet their needs. Therefore, requiring that one have a Logos base package would not work.

One possibility would be to have a "Guest" forum for those who have not made a purchase from Logos. Those who have not yet made a Logos purchase would be free to read any of the regular forums, but would only be able to post in the "Guest" forum.

The down side of this, is that it wouldn't address the issue of someone who has made a lot of purchases and still coming only to stir up trouble (as some have done recently). But once identified, such users could be reassigned to the "guest" category (if not permanently, then temporarily) at the level of their official Logos user ID.

All of that assumes, of course, that the current forum software can handle guest accounts and can filter them as Logos wants.

Wes Saad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266114#Comment_266114

The down side of this, is that it wouldn't address the issue of someone who has made a lot of purchases and still coming only to stir up trouble (as some have done recently).

But at least that would be easier to moderate. Blocking one user with purchases is easier than keep trying to block multiple random new accounts.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266113#Comment_266113

It's just that the entry just above yours isn't George.

Yes, that is very disturbing and does need to be fixed.

Schezic

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266099#Comment_266099

We are talking about a handful of users. If Logos were to close the flaw that allowed duplicating other peoples' handles etc. and were to return to closing off threads that go ballistic, I think things could return to "normal". I would trust Stephen to distinguish between reports of abuse that show a thread should be watched carefully vs. those that need killed or dropped.

You make valid points. However, I see little mention of an equally important issue: The ones who get together to talk about how to solve the problem, in these times of calm, are often the bravest warriors when a battle erupts. More times than not, neck deep in the turmoil, and throwing gas on the fire.

Obviously there are some who rebel without a cause. But the ones who become passionate about making a point will not be stayed off by a gate. They are small p protestants. Millions have died to profess their beliefs. I assure you, that attacking them when they protest, then scheming when they are gone, will not solve the problem. The ones who claim to possess higher angels, must demonstrate them, and not try to drown out the voices of the protesters, with their own.

God Bless.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266118#Comment_266118

My main concern is the spoofing. I can understand 'real people' getting wound up about their concerns.

I'd assume since the name-ID is derived from Logos.com, that the Wiki can be spoofed as well. Does someone propose to insure changes are made by 'real people'? How would you do that? That wiki involves a considerable amount of work.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266178#Comment_266178

As others have said, its hard to block by MAC or IP address, as those are hard for the web server to access (MAC), or are not fixed anyway (IP). Better if the forum software can be updated to not permit a new display name to match one already in use. Internally the wiki already uses the "true" login ID or email address, I expect.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/266201#Comment_266201

'I expect'? If you log onto the forum and then go to the wiki, it automatically uses the forum cookie to pull from the Logos.com account. I tried it.