On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 05:50:54PM -0700, Carl Witty wrote:
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 06:35, Timwi wrote:
David Friedland wrote:
I have written up a short, math-y description of
an algorithmic method
for determining whether or not a given revision constitutes reversion.
It won't work. No matter how clever and complicated your algorithm gets,
people can just study it and then make edits that *just* fall outside
the definition of a reversion.
Just because a defense mechanism fails against a sufficiently
knowledgeable and determined attacker does not mean it's useless.
Besides, the cost of figuring it out and the time needed to make the edit
circumvent the detection algorithm each time will act as a strong deterrent.
Theoretically, our main page should get vandalized all the time because the
templates are unprotected. But see how well it has served us.
Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me