Michael Rogers wrote: > Edgar Friendly wrote: >> Maybe a good list of people to choose from could simply be the people >> that user trusts to be good posters. > > Good point - that would make the UI simpler as well. When a user first > replies to a poster, the poster's puzzle will be presented. Subsequent > replies to the same poster won't require a puzzle. (That will also > discourage people from replying to disposable bot identities.) > That works. Who to choose for non-replies? i.e. threads created by new users. Maybe it's okay socially for newbies to join the conversation by replying to existing users, and not worry about them creating threads.
>> I guess Frost could detect the duplicate posts and filter >> the second one, unless the spammers mutated the original post >> slightly... ick, that's a path better not traveled. > > It might be better to detect duplicate puzzles, since the attack relies > on unmodified puzzles... or at least puzzles with the same *answer*, I > guess the attacker might be able to add noise to the *question*... argh. > Yup, tough to solve this. better to just avoid it if possible. Choosing trusted peoples' puzzles seems to go a long way towards avoidance. > "If there is hope, it lies > in the n00bs." > > Cheers, > Michael That is true, sub-communities could merge by a single newbie establishing trust with both communities, and then hopefully more trust links would appear to cement that connection, so as to not rely on that new user staying around. E. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
