Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: >> In which case, 90%+ of newbies won't use Frost. We need to ship some known >> good identities, and use the web of trust to pick the rest up. Obviously the >> newbie should be able to turn this off. > > Sounds like a good solution, as long as those people stay active. > I think that people would understand if we told them that they needed to pick who to trust and who not to trust. Besides, if we really do have a good solution for post-spam, spammers won't spend much energy spamming because of lack of return. Email spam will continue forever because of the people who actually buy generic [EMAIL PROTECTED] and penny stocks. I expect frost spam to have similarities to wikipedia spam. There's a lot of people who could do it, but since people catch it quickly, it lacks impact, so not much reason to do it, so people don't do it long.
>> Why? If you lurk you're invisible, you don't publish anything, surely? > > You publish a list of people you've marked GOOD, which reveals whose > posts you're reading. But I suppose you could get round it by marking > people OBSERVE if you didn't want to reveal that you were reading their > posts. > Maybe an option (off by default) to not publish trust information? That way, people who want to lurk can do so. As for per-group publish/no-publish, Maybe it would work well to have group-subscriptions be per-local-identity. So you'd have different groups for your different pseudonyms, and the lurker wouldn't publish trust info. E. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
