Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Noooooo dont PM me... :( I get too many a day as it is!

Just post in the other thread about it next time (2-3 down from this one)

I'll ban each account as it comes through etc etc

Although - i think another Admin beat me to it this time, i cant see the account

Cheers!

yeah it's a bummer. but to give users some privacy even admins cannot access other users pm box or read or delete pms in there. so it's not easy to combat. common sense is the only weapon you have. so let's use that! if you get a pm from an 'administrator' that signed up 2 days ago, has no admin tag and sends you to a site that ends in .ru then I say think carefully before clicking. for those that don't know if you mouse over a link your browser will display the URL that you're going to in the bottom left corner of your browser window. so you can check without clicking it. :banana:

user brickerza

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/br...rza-m61986.html

.ru link in pm titled Weekend

x2. I got that one too.

I was smart enough to notice the '0' post count, so just deleted it.

Its wierd, this is the only forum i have ever been on that suffers from this amount of spam!

Got a PM from Brickerza last night that was titled "Weekend".

Inside it suggests that I should click on a link with the words "Do it now!" which was underlined.

Of course I didn't do this...

This would have taken me to "http://iefa.ru/"

Do we need to ban this User?

Surely there should be a way to implement a general limit on the number of PMs forum users can send per day, especially those with 0 or very few posts.

I think 20 PMs/day would be more than enough for everyone but mods/admins.

Got a PM from Brickerza last night that was titled "Weekend".

Inside it suggests that I should click on a link with the words "Do it now!" which was underlined.

Of course I didn't do this...

This would have taken me to "http://iefa.ru/"

Do we need to ban this User?

i got the same msg. i immediately thought of how many noobs will be clicking the link. not very good.

Got a PM from Brickerza last night that was titled "Weekend".

Inside it suggests that I should click on a link with the words "Do it now!" which was underlined.

Of course I didn't do this...

This would have taken me to "http://iefa.ru/"

Do we need to ban this User?

I just got one too with the same link.  It's undoubtedly a malware site that will install some horrible rubbish on your computer by merely visiting it.  I didn't click it either.

Edited by Agbeard

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...