> > That's one way to do permission based e-mail. You can also do > cryptographically signed messages with a white list. It's simpler and will > in practice be about as effective and less of a pain to use. It's similar > to the way that private mailing lists stop spam except better because > addresses can't be spoofed as they can in normal e-mail. But that doesnt stop spam. You still have to check a possibly spammable keyspace. > 3) Human filtering of spam. Not relevant for e-mail, but relevant for > newsgroups and mailing lists. It works on normal moderated newsgroups > today. My discussion specifically involved ways to eliminate or vastly reduce spam.
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Chris Anderson
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Chris Anderson
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Peter Todd
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Chris Anderson
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Scott G. Miller
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Scott G. Miller
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Travis Bemann
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Scott G. Miller
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Ian Clarke
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Travis Bemann
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Scott G. Miller
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Mark J. Roberts
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Travis Bemann
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Scott G. Miller
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Brandon
- Re: [freenet-devl] FCP Layer #3: Stacks Scott G. Miller
PGP signature