php0t wrote: > > A big part of the problem you mention can be solved by requiring a
> > Turing test for the actions that you don't want a bot to be able to > > do. > I guess you missed all the historic discussion of how cheap it is, in > "Western" terms, to employ what passes as skilled labour in much of the > third-world to solve "captcha-like" challenges??? Actually I didn't, this is exactly why I wrote 'big part of the problem' (that maybe you missed). I thought a very big percentage was related to only bots doing the spamming, and just a smaller percentage hiring real life people to spam for them or just solve the captcha-like challenges (in which case the Turing test isn't a solution). > Now, while I'm sure that approach would not be economically viable for > most large-scale blog-spamming, depending on the blog and the spam, it > may well be worthwhile for some especially targetted blog-spam, so > shouldn't be expected to be a singularly successful solution. Yep.. I repeat. 'Big part of the problem'. Which is nowhere near 'singularly successful solution'. Let's suppose 20% of that spam you see is posted by people doing this all day, getting paid for it. It's probably much less, but this is all a guess, nothing more. Would it not be a solution for the other 80% ? Of course, if you have some statistics that tell me I terribly underestimated that overestimation of 20%, or just introduce new elements that I did not consider, do not hesitate to show it to me, I'm happy with accepting facts. php0t _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
