On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Sachau <m...@tommyserver.de> wrote: > 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".
Have you read the proof? > >>>> - 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? How is this remotely relevant to choice of algorithm? > >>>> - 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? That is one question, but not the only one. Another one is, is the provable upper bound better or worse than the provable upper bound for a specific alternative proposal? As to the former, I cannot say with certainty until we try it out, and even then we only have indications, not proof. As to the latter, I have yet to hear anyone propose an alternative to Advogato that has an upper bound, let alone one that's better. Evan Daniel _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
