roblem. If your captchas are good, that means they are more
> likely to be human. I work from an assumption that captchas are
> marginally effective at best. If you think I am mistaken in that,
> please explain why. From that assumption, I conclude that we need a
> system that is reasonably effective against a spammer who can solve
> significant numbers of captchas, but still is capable of making use of
> the information that solving a captcha does provide.
You cannot. Whatever you use as entry barrier, if someone is able to break it
with some automatic
way or with other massive attack, your are lost in one way or another. The
already existing
community may still work and stay, but new users wont be able to join.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/016047cf/attachment.pgp>
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?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/5825a772/attachment.pgp>
nk he is mistaken. You still require people to mark identities as
trusted to get them
visible and have them stay visible to others. This wont happen, so people will
loose their
Captcha-Trust and will have to solve more captchas. Annoying for everyone, and
most annoying for the
lazy majority.
> Fundamentally, it's a question of whether you believe CAPTCHAs work.
> I don't. If you start with an assumption that CAPTCHAs are a minor
> hindrance at most, then if you require that everyone sees messages
> sent by identities that have only solved CAPTCHAs and not gained
> manual trust, then you've made it a design criteria to permit
> unlimited amounts of spam. (That's bad.) If you believe CAPTCHAs
> work, then things are a bit easier... but I think the balance of the
> evidence is against that belief.
Captchas may not be the ultimative solution. But they are one way to let people
in while prooving to
be humans. And you will need this limit (human proove), so you will always need
some sort of captcha
or a real friends trust network.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/31a3fbf3/attachment.pgp>
-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/36ce9a3c/attachment.pgp>
On Wednesday, 27. May 2009 19:53:01 Evan Daniel wrote:
> 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,
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau
>> wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. ?Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. ?For the current network, I see no reason not to
have the
On Tuesday, 26. May 2009 19:16:14 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 17:30:00 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > On Sunday, 24. May 2009 16:52:00 xor wrote:
> > > Full ACK. Friends page HAS to be separate to encourage users to
> > > establish darknet connections. Maybe we should even wri
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau
>> wrote:
>>> Evan Daniel schrieb:
That is fundamentally a hard problem.
- Advogato is not perfect. ?I am certain there will be some amount of
spam gettin
Cl?ment wrote:
>>> The ?Search Freenet? field and bookmarks are definitly a good thing.
>>> However, why do we have :
>>> ?Fetch a key? : we don't want to fetch a key, we want to browse Freenet.
>>>
>> Fetching a key is a CORE functionality, it is like the address bar in an
>> internet bro
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> A small number could still be rather large. ?Having thousands see it
>> ought to suffice. ?For the current network, I see no reason not to
>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>
> If your small number is that bi
Raw idea, needs lots of refining:
Make the default minimum trust to zero and add a panic button that would
raise it, automatically marking as 'untrusted' all the ID's that
haven't been manually marked as 'trusted'.
(where's the elephant in the room that I always miss?)
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau 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 possib
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
have the (de
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
>>> ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
>>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>> If you
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau 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 th
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau 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 Advogat
he problem then is that this is SVN
> > and thus vulnerable to MITMs. GWT is vast, it is not practical to review
> > the source even for the two jars we would be using (gwt-dev-linux.jar and
> > gwt-user.jar, total approx 15MB compiled code).
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/99ff08e4/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
>> ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>
> If your small number is that bi
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau 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 possib
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, xor wrote:
>> On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>>
>>> wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Is'nt his point that the users just
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 o
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 23 May 2009 21:20:46 Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>> * Matthew Toseland [2009-05-23 20:43:56]:
>>
>> > sashee is working on making the web interface more dynamic. Google Web
>> > Toolkit will be used to translate some java code i
Clément wrote:
>>> The “Search Freenet” field and bookmarks are definitly a good thing.
>>> However, why do we have :
>>> “Fetch a key” : we don't want to fetch a key, we want to browse Freenet.
>>>
>> Fetching a key is a CORE functionality, it is like the address bar in an
>> internet bro
Raw idea, needs lots of refining:
Make the default minimum trust to zero and add a panic button that would
raise it, automatically marking as 'untrusted' all the ID's that
haven't been manually marked as 'trusted'.
(where's the elephant in the room that I always miss?)
__
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 01:16:53 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 May 2009 21:20:46 Florent Daignière wrote:
> >> * Matthew Toseland [2009-05-23 20:43:56]:
> >>
> >> > sashee is working on making the web interface more dynamic. G
important right now.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/292b147f/attachment.pgp>
26 matches
Mail list logo
