rouvax

> A 1950s project is to blame

Half-way through the article: "When the sugi and hinoki forests were first planted in the 1950s and 60s, they weren't meant to stand forever. At the time, it was assumed they would be gradually cut down and replanted over time, as had been the case before the war. But as Japan's economy boomed in the late 60s and 70s, major cities like Kobe and Tokyo grew rapidly, and it ended up being cheaper to import wood from other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia."

As often in environmental health, the cost-benefit ratio is calculated after the exposure is widespread, i.e. too late.

> - the fact that you cannot cut and paste files

Back in time I also complained about this, but do you know that if you copy (CMD+C) then do CMD+ALT+V, then copy&paste becomes cut&paste ?

You may very well be true, but then it's a pity that a 2019 article on a 2002 method didn't mention it?

I believe this raises the issue of short-term solutions (such as filtering on 'click') for which spammers will eventually find turnarounds vs long-term solutions. But do we need really need long-term solutions if an update of filtering terms every year is enough to keep the pace? Also, does a long-term solution against spamming even exist? Since the Graham solution from 2002 doesn't seem to have been implemented yet, the answer is no?

Another issue is the carbon/energetic cost of spamming. I'm no expert, but given the probably high figures, should this issue be escalated to a higher level, e.g. an international agreement along with heavy penalty if caught running a larger spamming farm? Compared to the difficult issues of drug trafficking etc. I don't see how there could not be a consensus for spam.

The article has the merit of significantly reducing the size of the original essay, while IMO still retaining two strong messages: 1. The original (is it?) method used to prevent spam, and 2. The 'seed' factor, which is expected to make spammers work harder. At mid-page I was thinking "meh, spammers will just have to improve their writing then", but this may not be sufficient thanks to the user-specific seed.

[edit: I didn't realize the original article was from 2002. I agree the article is a bit obsolete at that point.]