On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:21:04PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: > It is possible to make the system somewhat resistant to such abuses, > but it's nearly impossible to make the system effective at weeding out > bad submitters and trusting of good submitters without making it > easily abused.
This seems rather a sweeping statement as though fact. One of the key tenets in cryptography for example is that the algorithm is secure *despite* being fully revealed. So there is no causal link between a system's function being open to examination and it being open to abuse. If I were in Cloudmark's position of promoting an online service I would perhaps be less concerned about spammer abuse as undermining my business model before becoming established in the market (cf slashdot, a bastion of open source-related reporting, not open sourcing their own code for some time). Paul, just pointing out there is often more than one reason. -- Paul Makepeace ....................................... http://paulm.com/ "If the song remains the same, then I wouldn't visit italy. Or maybe I would." -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
