Talk:Challenge-response spam filtering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, I just broke this out from Stopping_e-mail_abuse, so the content still needs a bit of massaging. Any help is welcome!

One of my goals for this page is to produce a compendium of all the objections to C/R along with a 1-2 sentence rebuttal of each (where there exists a sensible rebuttal). Basically a summary of the arguments we've all heard a thousand times by now.

-- Megacz 04:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has a long way to go towards meeting Wikipedia's neutral tone guidelines. It's mostly a "why this is evil" page right now. It's hard to say where to begin to edit it.

It's a NPOV summary of both sides of a debate; I would be worried if half of the the content wasn't negative. For the record, I've added very little since moving the content here from Stopping_e-mail_abuse, and nobody was complaining about the tone when it was over there. Additions are quite welcome! Megacz 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is 90% criticisms, very little else. I don't see that as NPOV or a summary of both sides. It also includes side-notes about captchas, which are fairly rare in C/R systems (and much more common in web systems for signup and posting). Not that the note about most captchas and the blind isn't true.

I have found that while everybody agrees that they don't want autoresponders (of any kind, including vacation programs, virus software, mail bouncers and mailing list opt-in confirmations) to go to forged addresses, just about everybody also agrees they would much rather get a challenge than have their mail discarded. Of course everybody would prefer it to just be delivered with no extra work but we would all like a pony too.

Bradtem, you certainly have valid concerns, and I do not dispute them. But the debate is far more complex than that, and I think that the history of the debate deserves to be documented. For the record, the page is not 90% criticisms, and many of the criticisms are criticisms only of particular misimplimentations of C/R. Distinguishing these from "universal criticisms" is one of the primary objectives of this page. Megacz 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That seems backwards (compendium of all the objections to C/R)

I'd think that NPOV would require that the article first describe C/R systems. Later in the article criticisms and responses could appear. A good exercise for the anti-C/R folks would be to properly present the NPOV case for C/R.

Minasbeede 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I myself use a C/R system, although I wrote it myself because I am against all existing systems [known to me]. So I'm not sure that I fall clearly into either of these camps. You're welcome to add the parts you suggest! Megacz 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of the problems I see cited are not ones I understand to be common, such as loops between fighting C/R systems, and common challenge to properly classified mailing list mail with a Precendence header. It would be good to see citations of which systems had these bugs. --Bradtem 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

"the inconsiderate burden their beloved C/R systems place on innocent bystanders" ?

This could be fixed by removing "inconsiderate", and "beloved", couldn't it?ConditionalZenith 10:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No reponse and original complainer didn't leave details. Making changes as specified and removing POV template.ConditionalZenith 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)