From: Phlip <phlip_cpp@...>
Date: 2004-11-01T05:13:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Flea vs RubyGarden

trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:

> You bring up an interesting insight. If a page contains a "mark" of
> un-save-ability, then it useless to spammers unless they can identify that
> mark and remove. We've already seen that something as simple as 'http://'
can
> help do that. Of course eventually they could easily circumvent that. But
we
> have an interesting solution in the making.
>
> If we allowed a special mark for a page, such that the lock sequence would
> have to be _removed_ from the page before it will save. This would largely
> thwart spammers b/c they generally just _add_ to the page --moreover, if
the
> lock sequence is redefinable to some degree it may help even more.
>
> But how might it be done?

This arms race is bows-and-arrows against nukes. If we put a secret mark on
a page, this is the equivalent of a CAPTCHA, because a human must read the
documentation to find the mark. But the loophole is the spammer will just
erase the entire page.

-- 
  Phlip
  http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces