On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau <mail at 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? > One limit per identity is the amount of messages which are accepted per day. > And if you trust some > active indentities, which think the same as you, you will get nearly no spam > at all because they > already marked it as spam. FMS/WoT depends on the trust relationship between > people and them telling > each other about third partys. > >> - 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? Of course Advogato gives you the same ability, that is the entire point. The precise algorithm is different, but the problem it tries to solve is the same. The one difference is that Advogato is not about determining that person X is a spammer, it's about determining that person X *isn't* a spammer. From a user's standpoint, the two questions are precisely identical, but at an algorithm level they're not. > >> - 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. Evan Daniel
