Evan Daniel schrieb: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau <m...@tommyserver.de> wrote: >> Evan Daniel schrieb: >>> That is fundamentally a hard problem. >>> - Advogato is not perfect. I am certain there will be some amount of >>> spam getting through; hopefully it will be a small amount. >>> - With Advogato, the amount of spam possible is well defined. With >>> FMS and WoT it is not. Neither of them have an upper bound on the >>> amount of spam. >> How do you define spam? > > Please clarify the question. Do you mean me, personally? The Freenet > community as a whole? Or in the context of the proof?
The question should point out the problem about "spam". One may say that only messages with random letters are spam. Others may add many messages, which are all the same or similar. Others may add messages with different languages than their own. Others may add logbots. Another one may want to add everyone who argues for avogato or FMS. Since there is no objective spam definition, you can neither say that the "amount of spam is well defined" nor that there "is no upper bound on the amount of spam". >>> - Being too good at solving the spam problem means we are too good at >>> mob censorship. Both are problems. In practice, the goal should be >>> to strike an appropriate balance between the two, not simply to >>> eliminate spam. >> Since you cannot say what is spam and what not, this is relative. In FMS, >> you can choose to trust >> those that think the same as you and you will get their spam markings. Can >> you get the same with >> avogato? > > I have only *very* rarely had any difficulty determining whether a > message was spam or not. Why would this be any different? You yourself had no problems. But are you sure others share your view on it? >>> - I believe that Advogato is capable of limiting spam to levels where >>> the system is usable, even in the case of reasonably determined >>> spammers. If the most they can aspire to is being a nuisance, I don't >>> think the spammers will be as interested. If spamming takes work and >>> doesn't do all that much, they'll give up. The actual amount of spam >>> seen in practice should be well below the worst possible case -- if >>> and only if the worst case isn't catastrophic. >> How much noice will it allow? The alice bot spam in frost was also just >> annoying, but i do think >> that many new users where annoyed and left frost and freenet. So a default >> system should not only >> make it usable, but also relative spamfree from the view of the majority. > > It will accept a number of spam identities at most equal to the sum of > the excess capacity of the set of confused identities. The question is this: Will it prevent enough, so almost all spam or will the amount of spam force new (and old) users to leave like it happened and happens with frost and the alice bot?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
