at captchas are
> marginally effective at best. If you think I am mistaken in that,
> please explain why. From that assumption, I conclude that we need a
> system that is reasonably effective against a spammer who can solve
> significant numbers of captchas, but still is capable of making use of
> the information that solving a captcha does provide.
You cannot. Whatever you use as entry barrier, if someone is able to break it
with some automatic
way or with other massive attack, your are lost in one way or another. The
already existing
community may still work and stay, but new users wont be able to join.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/016047cf/attachment.pgp>
s: Will it prevent enough, so almost all spam or will the
amount of spam force
new (and old) users to leave like it happened and happens with frost and the
alice bot?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/5825a772/attachment.pgp>
others. This wont happen, so people will
loose their
Captcha-Trust and will have to solve more captchas. Annoying for everyone, and
most annoying for the
lazy majority.
> Fundamentally, it's a question of whether you believe CAPTCHAs work.
> I don't. If you start with an assumption that CAPTCHAs are a minor
> hindrance at most, then if you require that everyone sees messages
> sent by identities that have only solved CAPTCHAs and not gained
> manual trust, then you've made it a design criteria to permit
> unlimited amounts of spam. (That's bad.) If you believe CAPTCHAs
> work, then things are a bit easier... but I think the balance of the
> evidence is against that belief.
Captchas may not be the ultimative solution. But they are one way to let people
in while prooving to
be humans. And you will need this limit (human proove), so you will always need
some sort of captcha
or a real friends trust network.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/31a3fbf3/attachment.pgp>
bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/36ce9a3c/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau
>> wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. ?Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. ?For the current network, I see no reason not to
have
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau
>> wrote:
>>> Evan Daniel schrieb:
That is fundamentally a hard problem.
- Advogato is not perfect. ?I am certain there will be some amount of
spam
Cl?ment wrote:
>>> The ?Search Freenet? field and bookmarks are definitly a good thing.
>>> However, why do we have :
>>> ?Fetch a key? : we don't want to fetch a key, we want to browse Freenet.
>>>
>> Fetching a key is a CORE functionality, it is like the address bar in an
>> internet
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> A small number could still be rather large. ?Having thousands see it
>> ought to suffice. ?For the current network, I see no reason not to
>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>
> If your small number is that
Raw idea, needs lots of refining:
Make the default minimum trust to zero and add a panic button that would
raise it, automatically marking as 'untrusted' all the ID's that
haven't been manually marked as 'trusted'.
(where's the elephant in the room that I always miss?)
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> That is fundamentally a hard problem.
>> - Advogato is not perfect. ?I am certain there will be some amount of
>> spam getting through; hopefully it will be a small amount.
>> - With Advogato, the amount of spam
is that this is SVN
> > and thus vulnerable to MITMs. GWT is vast, it is not practical to review
> > the source even for the two jars we would be using (gwt-dev-linux.jar and
> > gwt-user.jar, total approx 15MB compiled code).
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/99ff08e4/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 23 May 2009 21:20:46 Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>> * Matthew Toseland [2009-05-23 20:43:56]:
>>
>> > sashee is working on making the web interface more dynamic. Google Web
>> > Toolkit will be used to translate some java code
right now.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090527/292b147f/attachment.pgp>
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 23:19:53 Evan Daniel wrote:
> 2009/5/26 xor :
> > On Tuesday 26 May 2009 22:02:37 xor wrote:
> >> On Thursday 07 May 2009 11:23:51 Evan Daniel wrote:
> >> > > Why exactly? Your post is nice but I do not see how it answers my
> >> > > question. The general problem my post is
Freenet 0.7 build 1212 is now available. Please upgrade.
1211 changelog:
- Improve various text strings, including the search button and the config page
section titles.
- Fix adding noderefs that included the text "End" e.g. in an ARK key.
- Minor changes to the salted hash datastore (related to
On Monday 25 May 2009 22:30:17 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Monday, 25. May 2009 13:53:45 Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > And we learnt about it ... Yesterday. Great! We NEED to find a better
> > way to get feedback from users.
>
> Couldn't a bug report function be integrated directly into the
On Monday 25 May 2009 12:53:45 Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>
> After reading the rants of a user complaining about javaws not working on
> #freenet, I decided to try it out:
>
> $wget https://checksums.freenetproject.org/cc/new_installer_offline.jar
> $jarsigner -verify
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 01:16:53 Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 21:20:46 Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2009-05-23 20:43:56]:
sashee is working on
Raw idea, needs lots of refining:
Make the default minimum trust to zero and add a panic button that would
raise it, automatically marking as 'untrusted' all the ID's that
haven't been manually marked as 'trusted'.
(where's the elephant in the room that I always miss?)
Clément wrote:
snip
The “Search Freenet” field and bookmarks are definitly a good thing.
However, why do we have :
“Fetch a key” : we don't want to fetch a key, we want to browse Freenet.
Fetching a key is a CORE functionality, it is like the address bar in an
internet browser! If
Evan Daniel schrieb:
That is fundamentally a hard problem.
- Advogato is not perfect. I am certain there will be some amount of
spam getting through; hopefully it will be a small amount.
- With Advogato, the amount of spam possible is well defined. With
FMS and WoT it is not. Neither of
Evan Daniel schrieb:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
Is'nt his point that
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
Evan Daniel schrieb:
That is fundamentally a hard problem.
- Advogato is not perfect. I am certain there will be some amount of
spam getting through; hopefully it will be a small amount.
- With Advogato, the amount of
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
If your small
Evan Daniel schrieb:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
Evan Daniel schrieb:
That is fundamentally a hard problem.
- Advogato is not perfect. I am certain there will be some amount of
spam getting through; hopefully it will be a small amount.
- With
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
Evan Daniel schrieb:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
Evan Daniel schrieb:
That is fundamentally a hard problem.
- Advogato is not perfect. I am certain there will be some
Evan Daniel schrieb:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
Evan Daniel schrieb:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no
On Tuesday, 26. May 2009 19:16:14 Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Sunday 24 May 2009 17:30:00 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Sunday, 24. May 2009 16:52:00 xor wrote:
Full ACK. Friends page HAS to be separate to encourage users to
establish darknet connections. Maybe we should even write
On Wednesday, 27. May 2009 19:53:01 Evan Daniel wrote:
I have only very rarely had any difficulty determining whether a
message was spam or not. Why would this be any different?
Of course Advogato gives you the same ability, that is the entire
point. The precise algorithm is different, but
30 matches
Mail list logo
