Le lundi 13 février 2017, 09:24:47 CET Sam Whited a écrit : > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote: > > - proof of work would be really nice, with a fallback mechanism. > > If by a "fallback mechanism" my understanding is correct and you mean > "something to fall back too if the client does not support the > particular proof-of-work function the server is asking it to compute", > we can't do this. > If you allow fallback, spammers just won't support the POW function > and will register a ton of accounts anyways. If a server advertises > that it requires a POW calculation before registration can be > completed, it will need to always require support in all clients that > register on that server. > > —Sam
I was thinking about a human challenge (question specific to user), which need manual intervention, while proof of work can be fully automated (but expensive for spammers). e.g.: POW client request registration => server request POW => client compute => server check, OK vs NON POW client request registration => serveur request a human challenge (captcha, whatever) => client user answer => server check, OK the later is more annoying because it needs human intervention while the POW client can do everything automatically. Goffi _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
