[Full-disclosure] LOL HY

[darren kirby]

quoth the Matt Burnett:
> You really think this would be hard to design. Think about how most
> spam solutions work, if you get 25 posts in hour with 100k
> attachments from a new user, do you think they are talking about
> security or are they posting porn. Anything a spam filter would
> consider suspicous could be flaged for moderator approval. Its not
> 100% fool proof but do you really think some 16 year old kid whos
> posting porn here would take the time to try to defeat it, in order
> just to post crappy porn?
>
> If implemented properly it would not limit the free exchange of
> SECURITY RELATED information, but would limit the exchange of porn on
> FD. You dont think a couple thousand security people, most of whom
> are strong supporters of privacy rights/civil rights/etc couldnt
> devise a proper system that would not impead the exchange of security
> related information?

+1

The signal/noise ratio here has really gotten unbearable in the last few 
months. We can deal with most undesired mail from repeat posters with a 
filter, but the crapfloods need to be dealt with in a more drastic fashion.

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20060815/c3fdd2d7/attachment.bin