Re: Suggestion on the Reflector Problem Re: When

Alex Watson (alex@pathfinders.com)
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 18:00:22 -0600 (CST)


This is a good idea, and the cgi wouldnt be that hard, plus you can have
the computername of the guy that verified it next to the "checkmarked as
good" reflector.

Another idea is to have a mailing system that sends messages once a week
to each reflector administrator to verify readiness of the reflector. The
admin would return the email to the listproc (so to speak) and update the
web page. The perl script for this would not be too difficult, and I'de
be willing to write it. (1/2 could already be considered done if you use
the reflector list at:

http://www.pathfinders.com/pathfind/cuseeme

But I must admit it is probably out of date. (And this brings up the idea
of mailbombing an innocent non-reflector admin.) ugh. forget it. lost cause.

alex

>
> Boys! Hold it right there. Stop this verbal violence at once! I'm the
> only one allowed to flame on this list. :) .... What I think would
> really be a helpful thing is to have all the users update the list.
>
> What I had in mind was: Anyone goes to the URL of the reflector list.
> They select a reflector. If it's good, they click on an icon to the side
> of the reflector "MARK GOOD", if it's bad, they click on "MARK BAD". This
> can be done using a CGI script.
>
> After each marking has been done, the server will rearrange the list and
> the next person to visit the URL will see the marked good reflectors
> first, the unchecked second, and the bad at the end.
>
> Now, possible problems... Someone wants to play games and mark everything
> which is good as BAD and/or vise versa. Easy solution - completely ignore
> any input from that site as soon as the problem is detected. I used to do
> just that on my Voice BBS by blocking certain people based on their Caller
> ID info. They tried to call from friends (which I then blocked too), they
> tried to call from Pay PHones (which I then blocked = "PAY PHONE"), they
> tried to call from Cell Phones (which I then blocked = "OUT OF AREA") and
> then I completely eradicated the problem. They simply gave up.
>
> So this works. Another way (better+complexer) to solve the problem of
> erroneous/purposely-incorrect input is to have the system treat any
> MARKING (GOOD/BAD) only if at least 3 people of different sites marked it
> as the same marking. This is good for sites which keep going BAD, GOOD,
> BAD, GOOD, BAD... As soon as three (or four or whatever) people mark it
> as good, it changes from its previous marking of BAD to GOOD.
>
> In order to have people even CONSIDER the Bad reflectors (to see if they
> became Good), a sublist can be created of "potentially good sites" where
> the listed reflectors are all these which are currently marked as Bad but
> have at least one person mark them as Good.
>
> So if a bad guy plays around, 3 good guys check it on the "potential list"
> and mark it back to "BAD" in no time. The system could then keep a log of
> all the reflectors in this last case (where a bad guy gets caught), and if
> a bad guy is caught two consequetive times, anything from his site
> AUTOMATICALLY gets rejected when he tries to foil up the system any
> addiotional times.
>
> I don't even think it's a big thing to program using CGI. I personally
> don't have a cgi account (yet) so I haven't learned the basics (yet), but
> eventually...
>
> OK. Now does this make sense to anyone else other than myself?
>
> Ron
>