[Standards-JIG] bot-challenge proto-JEP

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Thu Sep 1 13:52:16 CDT 2005


Richard Dobson wrote:
> You might also want to consider future proofing the JEP with 
> support for video CAPTCHAs.

Yes, thanks. Done.


David Sansot wrote:
> In regard to the multiple challenges, I find the rule
> of "answer all required plus one" a little odd.  How
> about just including a field with the number of
> desired answers?  You can still use <required/> the
> same way.  This would also let you do something like
> "pick two out of the five, but I don't care which two."

I was trying not to add too many extra fields. But I think you're right.
I've added an optional 'answers' field to the protocol.


I also added a compulsory new section about "Discontinuation Policy"!
(see text below)

Thanks again for the feedback and ideas.

- Ian


"It is RECOMMENDED that entities employ other techniques to combat SPIM
in addition to those described in this document. The expectation is that
this protocol will be an important and successful tool for discouraging
SPIM. However, much of its success is dependent on the quality of the
CAPTCHAs employed by a particular implementation.

The administrator of an entity MUST discontinue the use of Bot
Challenges under the following circumstances:

- If he realises that the entity's Bot Challenges are largely
ineffective in combating SPIM, and that the reduction in SPIM does not
compensate for the inconvenience to humans of responding to the entity's
challenges. 

- If other, more transparent, techniques being employed by the entity
are so successful that Bot Challenges are only offering negligable
additional protection against SPIM. 

- If the entity needs no protection at all because it receives only a
negligable amount of SPIM."




More information about the Standards-JIG mailing list