On 13 Dec 2011, at 14:10, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 13:50, Smylers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Nicholas Clark writes: >> >>> I was also amused by the (current) second comment, which is actually >>> spam: >>> >>> Thanks for taking the time to discuss about this, I feel strongly >>> about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, would >>> you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely >>> helpful for me. >>> >>> followed by a link to a completely unrelated e-commerce site. >> >> Yeah, blog spammers seem to have a battery of anodyne comments, with >> gushing so vague it could reasonably apply to information on a wide >> range of subjects. > > One my blog got hit with (if 300 counts as a hit) was a series of > short comments like that but with exact one misspelling consisting of > a letter transposition. No link associated with it. Quite weird - > wasn't sure what it was trying to achieve, maybe poisoning > bayes/cluster filters with broken (but unusual) words so that they'd > be "learnt" over time as signals for ham. > > Paul >
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained through incompetency." The other possibilities is some numpty bought an automated tool and forgot to enter the url properly. -ash
