From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-10-26T03:01:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Garden Spam

On Monday 25 October 2004 01:49 pm, David G. Andersen wrote:
| On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:54:57AM +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma) scribed:
| > On Monday 25 October 2004 11:35 am, Jamis Buck wrote:
| > | ASCII art will still suffer from accessibility issues, since a screen
| > | reader will not be able to read the ASCII art in any intelligible way
| > | to the user. :( However, it is an ingenious approach...I'm tempted to
| > | look into that, JFTHOI.
| >
| > There is no way to do otherwise for a captcha system. How would a blind
| > person every be able to use a captcha system?
| >
| > And a poor man's captcha is hardly a defense at all.
|
| If it's effective, it's a great defense.  You're falling prey
| to "the perfect is the enemy of the good" -- while you're sitting
| around worrying about an attacker one-upping a simple captcha
| system, the RubyGarden webpages are being turned into an utterly
| useless cesspool of spam.  This discussion has been going on
| for literally months, during which the majority of the updates
| to RubyGarden look like:

No no. You misunderstand me. I fully agree. I have already offered to do it 
myself, in fact. But if I'm doing it, I may as well go ahead and do something 
that I know will hold the fort --it's not that much more trouble. I fear 
Garden has some intent spammers. I looked at this poor man's captcha system 
and it can be hacked in about 3 seconds. So something better is needed. No 
sense in doing something twice when it can be done the first time.

But like I said, I don't know what the hold up is either. There are a couple 
of clear choices that will help lots --even full moderation would be better 
the current situation.

T.