igrigorik wrote: > There are a few things that would have to be resolved: > - Spam. Just as with the ping servers, how do we protect the hub from > becoming a spam distributor? Thoughts? > It'd be nice to see feedback mechanism built into this ecosystem lest the hubs simply become open relays. Right now, services consuming the SixApart atomstream have no way to programaticly tell SixApart "We received updates for source X but found it to be spam". Similarly, sources downstream from pingomatic can't tell PoM how (un)useful a ping it relayed was; today > 90% of the old-school XMLRPC pings out there are for a spam site and each of the services downstream from ping relayers have their own mechanisms for dealing with it but no feedback recourse. I'd hate to see a PSHB fail to learn from these lessons.
This gets hairy if the hub re-publishes the feedback; naturally spammers would love to know when their publishes are detected as spam so they adapt their tactics. But if the hub simply knows that all of its destinations rejected items from a source, it can decide whether or not to continue relaying its content. I would imagine that hubs would advertise the repertoire of feedback they'll accept and provisioning feedback to the hub would be optional. -- Ian Kallen blog: http://www.arachna.com/roller/spidaman tweetz: http://twitter.com/spidaman vox: 925.385.8426
