Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 19:04:54 04/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2004 at 21:32:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 01, 2004 at 21:27:02, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On April 01, 2004 at 21:13:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On April 01, 2004 at 21:05:41, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On April 01, 2004 at 18:36:51, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>Given the various incidents of Swami, Kazinski, etc, I am proposing that we >>>>>require new members to have a paid email account (in other words, no @hotmail, >>>>>@yahoo, etc). >>>>> >>>>>Thoughts? >>>> >>>>This may be a workable idea. >>>> >>>>The one problem this idea has is differentiating between the free @hotmail and >>>>@yahoo accounts and the paid ones. >>>> >>>>However, free accounts have limitations on the size of a message that can be >>>>sent/received. Just send a large enough jpg image. If they can't receive the >>>>image, then it's a free account. You'll know if it bounces back as undeliverable >>>>or they can't describe the image. >>> >>>These speedbumps will cause as much damage as they remove. >>>IMO-YMMV. >> >>Can you give some examples? > >Suppose that Deiter Burssner (or some other useful posters) uses a free account? Does he? Even if he does, the hueristic can have an exception for anyone vouched for by x number of other members in good standing. > >Suppose that Steve gets 100 new signups. The technique I described can be 99% automated. Only signups using offbeat email providers whose limits are not readily known need to be handled manually. After an account from an unknown email provider is dealt with once, the limits would be known and further applications would be done automatically. The 100 new signups would all have to be from unique email providers for the 100 new signups to be a significant problem. >Suppose that you get a 10 MB bitmap in the mail. Just pick the right sized image for the corresponding email provider. This does not require a large database to handle better than 99% of the applications. > >I don't think the restrictions will solve anything. Solve? Doubtful. Why would you expect that? The goal is to make things better than they are now. >But maybe I am wrong. If you can think of a better reason why this would not work, you might be right.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.