I do see contrary arguments such as: there are more Windows viruses for the simple reason that there are more Windows systems out there. So there should be more similarly http bots out there because there are plenty of http servers but no xyz bots because there are no xyz servers.

As to the problem shifting slowly and reforming, perhaps it would eventually. But the weakness of the existing protocols is that they ARE protocols, leaving little room for flexible problem-solving of the bad-bot problem. The advantage of a clean slate is that you can build more room for anti-bot measures into the protocol itself and have more choice of layers of action.

It certainly would be nice to have a new protocol designed to deal with the myriad problems we are seeing today but the reality is it will take a group of technology and industry leaders to design a new protocol. And it will take them years to do it. Not to mention the RIAA and MPAA will likely try to get involved which will drag things out even further. And then how fast will it be implemented? It might take another year or two for Microsoft to implement it in Internet Explorer.

Quite frankly, five years for design and implementation sounds optimistic to me which makes me think wide spread adoption of a new protocol would likely be a decade or more away.

And that's why you are getting some of the feedback you are and why it is hard to take your "advantage of a clean slate" theory seriously. It is certainly a worthy goal and your optimism is admirable but it will be very, very hard to pull it off.

What you say is true. But suppose I don't rely on wide-scale adoption, but set up a hosting service that bundles it in and provides the necessary client installation kit.

-M

Free your mind