

FMS: Spam-proof anonymous message boards on Freenet - edw519
http://blog.locut.us/main/2008/5/11/fms-spam-proof-anonymous-message-boards-on-freenet.html

======
tudorachim
"It is likely that the necessity to pull from the outbox of every user will
only scale to a limited point, however FMS is being actively developed, and it
is likely that these problems can be overcome in due course."

Those are some famous last words...

------
apgwoz
Ironic that his post was hit with spam...

This was written last year, anyone know what it's like now?

------
Perceval
I think this is an interesting attempt, but will fail when it meets a
persistent spam group, like most anti-spam systems.

First, captchas can and will be broken/gamed or otherwise circumvented.

Second, trust networks are not new and are certainly not invulnerable to
attack. Advogato has had one for a long time, and it was subject to a pretty
run-of-the-mill but effective attack:
<http://www.squarefree.com/trust/trust.pdf>

Combining several different anti-spam methods into a kind of layered approach
is good, but it will hardly make it "spam proof."

~~~
stcredzero
Some general (perhaps fictional) said something once about the useless of
walls without men to defend them. (This is one of those things I can't Google
easily. Perhaps someone else can give a try?)

I've been watching the "web of trust" concept since the days of Phil Zimmerman
and PGP. Seems like it would be vulnerable to balkanization and cliques, just
like the non-virtual webs of trust that predate electronic networks.

The only thing that works against spam is to destroy its economic utility.
Perhaps, instead of a free-net, what's needed is a for-a-nominal-charge-net?

The problem with the current net, is that much of the stuff that has economic
utility, like advertisements, works best against the _least savvy_ segment of
the population. It's the too-dim-to-block-banner-ads, too-clueless-to-avoid-
phishing, stupid-enough-to-fall-for-spam segment driving so much of the
business of the internet. I hope we find a way to counteract this tendency.

~~~
Perceval
>Perhaps, instead of a free-net, what's needed is a for-a-nominal-charge-net?

We had those. They were called things like Compuserve and Prodigy. And they
didn't do well, as you recall.

The problem with spamming is that it _is_ very profitable. And it's not clear
that a micropayment for each email sent, each facebook message, each blog-
comment-spam is going to significantly cut into the fat margins of the most
profitable spamming rings.

At most, a surcharge will weed out the small fries, leaving only the big
successful spamming rings without any competition. Not exactly a big victory.

And like you say, the spam targets "the least savvy segment of the
population." If only there was a way to directly link the credulous fools to
the scruple-less cheats, we could achieve a worldwide system that more
effectively fleeces the idiots while leaving the rest of us in peace. Alas,
such a system is not on the horizon.

~~~
stcredzero
_If only there was a way to directly link the credulous fools to the scruple-
less cheats_

I suspect that some black-hat entrepreneur is already working on such a
database and the tools for automatically harvesting such user's information.
Or was that last line sarcasm?

 _We had those. They were called things like Compuserve and Prodigy. And they
didn't do well, as you recall._

But those things had a fee for _entry_. To directly address spammers, without
creating undue friction to participation, all you need is some sort of a fee
for _posting_. But alas, the problem is with collecting the payment. One could
argue that stackoverflow's karma/privilege system demands a non-monetary sort
of payment, but they don't have this as a barrier to _posting._

