5 ms·
Your post advocates a (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't wo
by sethrin 14y ago
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which vary from state to state.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires cooperation from too many of your friends and is counterintuitive
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever worked
( ) Other:
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
( ) Other:
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures cannot involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures cannot involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
( ) Other:
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Nice try, dude, but I don't think it will work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
- jrockway 14y agoI like these, but it doesn't really work this time. The problem is that their idea won't work. "emotions" is too small a search space. A spam bot could just answer "terrible" to every question and still send a good amount of spam. reCaptcha works because there are a lot of words in English and a lot of source material that needs to be digitized. That makes it infesible to guess one word, let alone two words at the same time. This emot-i-captcha requires a human to come up with an unbounded number of unique questions and answers, which is impossible.
- dlss 14y agoI think the bigger problem is that the questions are currently in plain text, which, since they require a human to write and once solved are solved forever, makes the approach as implemented a sort of quixotic reverse captcha. If they switch to image based questions, the potential problems for human solvers are magnified.
- anthonyb 14y agoNo it doesn't. Choose three words, one each from a group of positive (I like), neutral and negative (I don't like), along with something from a big list of news items which are good or bad. Now they have to choose (I like + good news) or (I don't like + bad news). Adding new words or new news items are independent of each other, and it doesn't seem that hard compared to traditional captchas.
- pjscott 14y agoThat template used to be very popular -- pessimism feels cool, doesn't it? -- but it lost a lot of credibility when spam filters got really good. I hardly ever get spam anymore.
- thaumasiotes 14y agoAs a consequence of living an atypical life, I have a somewhat dimmer view of spam filters. I don't get spam, but I also don't get genuine email from people I've actually corresponded with in the past. Seriously... if I maintain correspondence with a small set of qq numbers, and another qq number emails me, giving the exact same name as a different email account which I've written back and forth to... I shouldn't even see this new message, because it came from qq? This is the state of the art in gmail? And Gandi's webmail service won't even file mail from China as spam... it won't deliver it at all.