On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:26:42PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> - The premise that responses to challenges can be reliably predicted > >> is false. Legitimate senders will refuse to answer challenges. > >> Spammers can and do respond to challenges. > > > > not enough data available. > > It doesn't need to be available. If C-R gains enough popularity, of
Of course it does. For any statement to be held true, it has to be corroborated by some evidence, with the exception of statements which can be logically or mathematically proved. The above statement is too vague for that. > course spammers will figure out how to auto-respond to challenges. It's > completely trivial to them, and it's well known that spammers will be to > great lengths to ensure they reach the greatest number of people. If > they don't do it now, it's only because so few people use C-R that it's > not worth their bother. Probably spammers will invest a lot of time. BUT, so will C-R system designers. Challenges may require more and more human logical thought, like little riddles or something, or requiring to actually _read_ something or whatever. If spammers will invest more and more time to mimic human thought and answer those challenges, maybe this will result in a great advancement in artificial intelligence. David -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
