Sorry, but I still cant agree on why asking for a API key on the normal API cannot solve this. A whole application can be banned/throttled/controlled using the API key if needed this way. At present applications register and gets API keys anyway, so all this will do is add an extra layer of authentication on API calls.
I think this is more an obsession with OAuth. ;-) Nayeem 2009/6/2 Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> > Chad is correct. Until we have everyone pushed through a funnel where API > keys are required or applications can be deduced (as with OAuth) we have no > way of knowing which application actually sent an update or DM in some > cases. Furthermore, we don't have the notion of tweet level spam reporting. > Currently users are only able to flag accounts a spam through "@spam > @username" or "d spam @username" updates. > So, until we develop tools to deal with spam on a per tweet-basis and have > every application going through a pipe that we can control, application > blocking is not a valuable use of our resources. > Thanks, > Doug > -- > > Doug Williams > Twitter Platform Support > http://twitter.com/dougw > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Chad Etzel <jazzyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> No, it can't be required. Worse yet, it can be spoofed w/ basic auth, >> so a "blocked" app could just change it's source parameter and appear >> as something like TweetDeck. >> >> -Chad >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Developer In London >> <ebilliona...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Couldnt the app-id be made a required parameter for the API calls? That >> way >> > it can still work with basic auth. >> > >> > 2009/6/2 Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> >> >> >> >> Floated the idea. Until we funnel everyone through OAuth (that means no >> >> Basic Auth) this really isn't possible. It's something we'll keep in >> our >> >> back pockets for the long-term. >> >> Great suggestion though, Jesse. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Doug >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Doug Williams >> >> Twitter Platform Support >> >> http://twitter.com/dougw >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Carlos <carlosju...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> agreed, I'd like this as well. >> >>> >> >>> On May 31, 6:52 pm, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Not going to name names, but there are a few really noisy apps out >> >>> > there >> >>> > right now. It would be really nice if, via either the API (my >> >>> > preference as >> >>> > it would be less work on your part and fits well with my app), or >> the >> >>> > UI, >> >>> > you enabled users to block receiving Tweets generated from specific >> >>> > apps. >> >>> > This would then punish the app developers for creating spammy apps >> and >> >>> > not >> >>> > the users themselves for just using what was put out there, making >> it >> >>> > much >> >>> > less of a mess to control. Facebook does this, as does FriendFeed. >> >>> > Any >> >>> > chance you could enable this (please???) for Twitter? >> >>> > >> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> > >> >>> > @Jesse >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > cashflowclublondon.co.uk >> > >> > ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ >> > `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) >> > (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' >> > _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' >> > (il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' >> > . >> > >> > > -- cashflowclublondon.co.uk ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' .
