quoth the Matt Burnett: > You really think this would be hard to design. Think about how most > spam solutions work, if you get 25 posts in hour with 100k > attachments from a new user, do you think they are talking about > security or are they posting porn. Anything a spam filter would > consider suspicous could be flaged for moderator approval. Its not > 100% fool proof but do you really think some 16 year old kid whos > posting porn here would take the time to try to defeat it, in order > just to post crappy porn? > > If implemented properly it would not limit the free exchange of > SECURITY RELATED information, but would limit the exchange of porn on > FD. You dont think a couple thousand security people, most of whom > are strong supporters of privacy rights/civil rights/etc couldnt > devise a proper system that would not impead the exchange of security > related information?
+1 The signal/noise ratio here has really gotten unbearable in the last few months. We can deal with most undesired mail from repeat posters with a filter, but the crapfloods need to be dealt with in a more drastic fashion. -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976
pgpTEB2QAusNM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
