Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis.
StuartV wrote:
ps. and apparently this BBS needs some work, too. I tried to post this and it told me it didn't like some HTML that was embedded in the post. It told me to fix it and resubmit. I did, and now it has told me "Please address the following to complete the message posting:
- post flooding detected (community got posts of a unique message more than 1 times within 3,600 seconds)"
Sorry you as a legitimate user of the forum got caught in that. It appears to be working by design however. Certain html elements could be used maliciously by a poster and are not allowed. (It is a differnt story when a legitimate website uses these, the differnce here is this is user contributed content.) Simple html is allowed in posts. It's easy to get caught up in the post flood warning when having to resubmit a post that was rejected. That element is present to prevent multiple copies of the same post (usually caused by laggy internet conditions, and there is no way for the server to know which is really happening.
[edit: Moved from this thread, to keep that thread on topic, subject changed.]
Understood. If it were only that simple anymore..... 
I've looked at your incident. Unfortunitly I can't make public a couple of parts of the malicious posting safeguards. I can say that it was more than one event that occurred in succession to another, that ultimately made a dropped packet trigger the flood mechanism. It was a non-normal chain of events that lead a protection mechanism to trigger.
We do investigate these things whenever someone points them out because sometimes we learn something new.
Understood. But, if the first post was rejected by the server for other reasons, then the second post of it should not get rejected as post flooding.
Plus, if the second post is identical to the first, it should get rejected for the same reason the first one did. If it is NOT identical, then, again, it should not be rejected for post flooding.