Even ignoring openness and privacy, exactly the same problems are present
with reCAPTCHA as with Fancy Captcha.  It's often very hard or impossible
for humans to read, and is a big enough target to have been broken by
various people.

I don't know if it's constructive to brainstorm solutions to a "problem"
before we measure the extent of the problem, but a viable compromise is
very easy captchas.  Spammers vary a great deal in sophistication but if we
figure that any sophisticated enough to do any OCR are capable of finding
and downloading existing public exploits of ours, then a block capital
impact font captcha is equally easy for them, equally difficult for
unsophisticated spammers and much easier for sighted humans.

Luke


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Arthur Richards <aricha...@wikimedia.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <vita...@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Maybe you'll just use recaptcha instead of fancycaptcha?
> >
> >
> /me gets popcorn to watch recaptcha flame war
>
> There has been discussion on this list in the past about the use of
> recaptcha, but it has generally ended in a down-vote because reCaptcha is
> not open source (even though it supports free culture) nor is it something
> we can host on our own servers.
>
> --
> Arthur Richards
> Software Engineer, Mobile
> [[User:Awjrichards]]
> IRC: awjr
> +1-415-839-6885 x6687
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to