CAcert System Admins discussion list

[Andreas Bürki <abuerki AT cacert.org>]

Daniel Black schrieb:
> On Monday 05 October 2009 06:20:56 Ian G wrote:
>
>   
>> If that is so, and they are CAcert certs, then do we really need to have
>> any spam control on there?
>>     
>
> no, probably not. Also currently comments with more that 4 links are held 
> in 
> moderation too.
>   
>> theoretically we would need them only for other certs. 
>>     
> maybe. I'm tempted to keep it on until there is definitely a problem.
>
>   
>> But even client certs from well known & governed CAs should probably be 
>>     
> acceptable as a  barrier without subjecting them to spam control.
>
> I've contemplated deploying this too. I wouldn't mind a discussion of 
> allowing 
> a wider set of client certificate holders to participate at some level on 
> our 
> certificate authenticated services.
>   
Anything stimulating Certificate use - issued from 3rd party CA or
CAcert.org - is in my humble opinion fine, as it allows a dialog about
cryptography in general and certificate use, means all CAcert.org
related issues. And as I mentioned before, we should allow any comments
from the non-cert crowd as well, but of course moderated in terms of
fairness (privacy, data protection, unfair statements) and controlled in
terms of spam.
>  
>   
>>>> What would be the workload to moderate / control and who
>>>> does it?
>>>>         
>>> A setting can enable comments without registration/login.
>>>
>>> don't know how much workload that would be. I'm imaging at least 5 spams
>>> a day. This is what we were gettting when registration was still required
>>> to comment. Now that I've got this to 0 handling this many is more than I
>>> want to deal with. Volunteers welcome.
>>>       
>> I just looked at 290 in the queue, all spam,
>>     
>
> All in the Akismet Spam section I'm guessing. It was pretty good when it 
> was 
> running.
>
>   
>> all from the same IP#.
>>     
>
> which is the Tunix firewall - it just shows they used http to get to the 
> blog
>   
>> I deleted them...
>>     
> ok
>   
>> Now that a cert is required, my guess is we won't see any more.
>>     
> I would imagine so. The days since deployment didn't see any. I'll give it 
> one 
> more change to see if it catches any more false positives.
>
>
>   


-- 
Andreas Bürki - 
abuerki AT cacert.org
CAcert Assurer for People & Organizations

CAcert.org - Secure Together
http://www.cacert.org

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature