On 30 Aug 2008, at 14:05, tedd wrote:
At 11:39 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
I think both tedd and Stut make good points, I guess we'll all be
hacking away at such issues for a long time to come.
That's the nature of the beast (no not Stut!)
I am Stut - hear me Roar!!
CAPTCHA's are not a magic bullet, and I'm definitely of the opinion no
such bullet exists. Each problem is different and we need to think
about them differently. We all know there has to be a better way, and
I think we all agree that if possible we wouldn't be using them at
all. However, while we must recognise that each site we create will
present different opportunities for validating UGC without needing to
"fall back" to CAPTCHA's we must also recognise that CAPTCHA's work to
a certain extent and should not be avoided simply because they're not
perfect.
I can't remember who said it and I apologise for that, but someone
mentioned that the person who comes up with a better replacement for
CAPTCHA's will make billions. Unfortunately this is not true. Any idea
that has the potential to change the way the world works or plays will
not reach that potential if it comes with prohibitive licenses or
royalty fees attached. If it works make it free or adoption will be
severely restricted which makes it essentially worthless.
That's all I've got to say about that.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
