This is a draft of what I'll hopefully be submitting to Rebooting Web of Trust. If anyone would like to take a look, constructive feedback welcome:

github.com/emacsen/rwot9-pragu

@emacsen Hey, thanks for putting this all down on paper! some thoughts:

- I don't understand what ocap inboxes achieves over the current ability of moderators and users to block individual actors. how does this meaningfully improve spam-fighting abilities?

- You mention two methods for "Closing the Relay Hole", which both seem very similar to the discussion on github.com/w3c/activitypub/iss. You seem to gloss over the backwards-compatibility issues though—have you put thought into how you would implement this?

@nightpool Thanks for reading and feedback. It may take me a few replies to answer your question.

OCAP Inboxes offer two distinct advantages. The first is that they're transferable. Let's imagine that instead of inboxes, we were talking about phone numbers. If you call my "default number" you'd get my secretary who screens my calls. If I like you, I'll hand you a card with three phone numbers. Each of these get to me directyl (bypassing my secretary). One of those you use yourself.
(...)

@emacsen what value does transferability have in an anti-spam system? isn't that just strictly worse then blocking individual actors? (if each actor can get its own inbox, which ties into my comments on the "pet names" proposal)

Follow

@nightpool Blocking individual actors and OCAP Inboxes are both useful, but could happen at different places.

"Default Postage" may be a good default policy, maybe a second policy might be do to content filtering, Pet Names might bypass Postage (maybe!) and OCAP Inboxes might bypass all of them (ala a whitelist).

I want to avoid being too perscriptive right now and focus on techniques.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!