Re: My Gnutella spam reduction idea revised

Well, only the spambots would answer.  They
would look at the query, create a file (or
the appearance of a file that can be created
if someone bites), and return a result,
regardless of the string.  But that is not a
help.  Even if we knew they were spammers
at this point, what could we do if requested
cargo didn't also exist?  Even if the data
returned is from the spammers, would it be
reliable enough to exclude for so many
searches?  Plus, why send good searches
after bad ones?

The only work-around I'd see would be another
search excluding the clients that answered
the first time, and that is the very situation
we should try to avoid.  If we do a second
search, that is eating up bandwidth and there
is no guarantee that the clients marked for
exclusion are the spambots.  They could
simply be clients that relayed the hits or
machines of unfortunate souls who were
tricked into downloading the junk.

Just some thoughts.

                          Courtney

--- In [email protected], "Zlatin Balevsky" <zlatinb@...> wrote:
>
> Very interesting thought, Michael.  The only issue is
> backwards-compatibility.  Current clients will not respond to a multi-word
> query unless all words match.  If you add a new made up word, they will not
> answer at all.  Do you have any ideas how to work around that?
> 
>
> On 4/23/07, Michael Rogers <m.rogers@...> wrote:
> > Hi Courtney,
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea in principle, but I believe some Gnutella
> > clients match partial words to provide more intelligent reponses to
> > things like plurals, common suffixes and apostrophes. Instead of
> > chopping up one of the query terms, how about adding an extra query term
> > that's unlikely to occur in any real hits (eg a made-up word)? It's easy
> > to use a letter/digram/trigram frequency table to generate
> > realistic-looking words (too realistic, actually - you'd probably need
> > to filter them through a dictionary to remove any real words that were
> > generated by accident).
> >
> > Just a thought,
> > Michael