Suggestions for the future on your web site: (was cookies, and

Michael Thomas mike at
Sun Jan 27 01:45:42 UTC 2013

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
>> However, as part of a "defense in depth" strategy, it can still make
>> sense.  
> Brother, you're preaching to the choir.  I've argued for defense in depth
> for longer than I can remember.  Still am.
> But defenses have to be *meaningful* defenses.  Captchas are a pretend
> defense.  They're wishful thinking.  They're faith-based security.

Oh, I dunno. I run a website that has a fairly low volume forums that occasionally gets
a drive by spamming. I'm pretty sure that if I implemented even a naive captcha it would
go back to zero. Same thing with proof of email box control things that has to be even
easier to automate. Would they bother? I doubt it -- it was never particularly worth their
effort to even do the easy drive bys.


More information about the NANOG mailing list