On Wednesday 10 March 2004 03:13 am, Bob George wrote: > Matthew Cline wrote:
> >* Anonymous posters are only allowed a small number of posts per time unit > > per IP address before they have to prove that they're human through > > captchas (see http://www.captcha.net/). Registered accounts are allowed > > a higher rate of posting before they have to prove their human. > I'm on another list, frequented by a variety of users of older systems. > One such user is blind, and has frequently lamented about the lack of > usability imposed by such schemes. Section 508 for government agencies > in the US and other similar policy require(s|d) that such mechanisms > make adequate accomodation. There's the option to listen to a garbled audio recording, and type up what it says. Of course, that still leaves users who are blind *and* deaf out to dry, but nothing perfect. > >* When journal owners delete a comment from their journal, they now have > > the option to mark the comment as spam. Comments so marked can be > > reviewed by humans, who will delete the posting account if it really was > > spam. > Are the journal owners not human? Yes, but they journal owners might be mistaken, or might maliciously mark non-spam as spam in an effort to get someone else kicked off. > Spammers seem to thrive (under whatever rocks they live under) by > pumping out volume. It sounds to me like it would be better to > block/verify on sign-up -- even if verifying "human-ness" -- to avoid > automated blast tools. This is already done, but once you sing up, you can automatically put comments/posts in journal/communities. > I'm not sure if you're looking for suggestions, or making them! Just making note of how spam is being fought in a different medium than email. -- Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org
