> > Are you saying you will happily recieve [sic] spam as long as some
> > human is giving you attention?
> This is semantic silliness. As I'm sure you realize, the author
> simply pointed out that it is the "human test" provided by TMDA that
> allows us to block spam. Blocking spam is the goal; Turing tests are
> the means. While not the only method, TMDA is quite effective
> despite its inherent shortcomings.
But TMDA does not just rely on a "turing test". TMDA also
rely's on the fact that spammers forge From addresses, that the path
of spam is often one directional.
> If spammers automate C/R responses, C/R solutions such as TMDA will
> respond with a more involved Turing test that will be very difficult
> to automate.
Hmmmm. I've corresponded with someone who finds basic C/Rs
"extremely" annoying (his word, not mine). He refuses to respond to
them on principle. He claims he is not alone. He would probably find
a more elaborate response requirement even more annoying.
I'm not saying he's right, just that he exists, and I, or you,
might someday want to exchange email with him.
Please don't get me wrong. I think TMDA is darn nifty. I
really admire it. I'm just wondering how much farther it can go.
-Matthew.
______________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
