[chomp]
>> Ok, why did Usenet die? Why did IRC die?
>>
> I kindly disagree freenode is probably one of the best resources out
> there in it's kind.
I should spend some time on freenode =)
most of the spam will probably come from big wave providers... they
won't use their own servers because they know that won't work.
I like the idea of two inboxes... it could be easily combined with
your contact list. If you get invited to a wave from one of your
contacts it directly goes to the primary inbox, otherwise it goes to
the "unknown" box.
There will be definitly be a way to distinguish between human and
robot... currently you can safely assume that every <name>@appspot.com
attendee is a robot.
Guess this is the reason why they only allow robots on app engine right now...
Server wide blacklists could be a huge headache. There would be a lot
of overhead for maintaining the list and dealing with adding,
verifying, distributing it. A malicious individual might also be able
to get providers falsely inserted into the list (perhaps even Google),
which would be bad.
I think that allowing the block to occur at the user/participant level
would be a better method than to block at the server/protocol level
IMHO.
-Steve
True.
I wonder if there should be a method for a remote user to see if they
or their site is banned, but that is a discussion for the protocol
group.
> Email is close to useless today because of spam already so there will
> have to be strong anti-spam measures in place for the email gateway.
Is something wrong with your gmail account ? I think I get one spam
message in my inbox about once a week .)
An easy solution to keep wave clean from spam mails is to not import
mails into wave at all ;9
On a wave system since all the waves are simply copies of the original wave, ones your
"provider" locates that account as a spammer and deletes it from his
system ALL copies of it are gone. Which means 1000 spam waves need to
be clean up by 1 person/program/organization.
I would argue that this method would not be a very good one, because
it is not the users computer that will be "paying the bill" it is the
server that is running/hosting the wave.
If this comes out on servers like myspace and facebook, then a spammer could just create a myspace account, send out a lot of spam and then forget about the account. They do not have to "pay the cost" it would be the myspace server paying the cost for the waves.
2009/6/8 d.brophy <da...@dontstayin.com>:
So, let me state that all spam topic is really about spam-invitations
and misbehaving accepted participants. Isn't it?
If agreed with that, "maybe spam" seems to be the first and simplest
thing to do.
May be, next - some kind of distributed spam-participants database.
Not sure. Have to think more on it.
On Jun 8, 7:41 am, "d.brophy" <d...@dontstayin.com> wrote:I think you miss the point of the "Maybe spam" folder, its not up to
> If you're not on someone's whitelist, the first time you invite them
> to a wave, their WSP sends back a message containing a CAPTCHA image
> (http://www.captcha.net/). The wave invitation remains in a special
> "Maybe spam" folder until you successfully complete the CAPTCHA.
> Completing the CAPTCHA puts you on their whitelist, so subsequent
> invites go straight to their inbox.
the sender of the wave to decided this is or is not spam. If i send a
wave invite to 50 people, and none have me on their white list, then
my wave goes into the "Maybe spam" folder for all of them. I have no
control over this and no way of getting it out of that folder, other
then contacting the people and letting them know that i am sending
them a wave for the first time please add me to your white list. If
someone does not care to add me to their white list then all my
subsequent waves that I invite them to will also go into their "Maybe
spam" folder unless they decided to black list me, at which point all
my waves to them will be in a spam folder; this would not mean every
person I sent a wave to will not receive it though, as only they will
consider me spam.
> This system isn't new - it's been tried in email before. It didn't
> really work well because it wasn't implemented in the mail reader
> clients. The CAPTCHA requests where sent back as emails, which
> regularly got marked as spam themselves. With tight integration into
> the client software from day 1, this would be an excellent way to get
> round spam.
So, let me state that all spam topic is really about spam-invitations
and misbehaving accepted participants. Isn't it?
Considered that accounts, or entities, can be created in any number,
we have email spam problem projected as invites problem, with all
usual ways to fight with it.
The difference between two is level of interaction.
And the need of "anonymous" invites - can we avoid them?
We can partially do that granting "permission to invite" (subscribing)
to sources of interest.
But there is very general case -- "subscription" to wave by non-wave
action, e.g. by telling account name to friend, publishing address in
whitepaper or on public wave etc. -- we can't transfer subscription to
subscriber's wave account, or it becomes permission to very general
class of participants.
Let's think of groups. Can they help? Granting option to invite to any
group participant. Then, how can anonymous(spammer) or program became
participant of this group? The same problem with unlimited number of
anonymous accounts here.
That's just another turn on thinking. Looks like having "anonymous"
accounts is alike flaw as allowing sender spoofing in smtp.
Having web of waves with invites, and web of sites with emails, we see
that invitations functionality is isomorphic mapping of email system
functionality, only exclude "permanent" conversations from last.
Well, not sure, but looks like truth.
Considered that accounts, or entities, can be created in any number,
we have email spam problem projected as invites problem, with all
usual ways to fight with it.
The difference between two is level of interaction.
And the need of "anonymous" invites - can we avoid them?
That's just another turn on thinking. Looks like having "anonymous"
accounts is alike flaw as allowing sender spoofing in smtp.
ok then please read "delete" as flagged as spam. Instead of 1000000
people marking the wave spam in their inbox you will have 1000 servers
doing it. That's much better control over what is spam.