On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:01:41 -0700 Patrick Sweeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PS> So... while we're protecting our own user communities by doing all this PS> filtering and black-holing and such, we're not really addressing the PS> underlying problem at all, and the amount of network traffic being devoted PS> to spam is still rapidly growing. By not addressing it in some other way, PS> we're (in a sense) contributing to its growth. PS> PS> A prolonged discussion of this aspect of the spam problem should probably go PS> to a different list, but I had to get this out on the table for some initial PS> thoughts. PS>
I've stayed out of the conversation until now. But I wanted to say that you're quite right. I've been working on such a system (www.camram.org) which works at converting e-mail from receiver pays to sender pays. The sender pays by burning CPU cycles in a predetermined way to create a postage stamp. The postage stamp cannot be forged but is susceptible to Moore's law inflation. Read up on the technique from the camram web site and then feel free to contact me privately or publicly via the camram mailing list to discuss it if you wish. Please do not burden this list with any more off-topic discussion. ---eric --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the digest version first unsubscribe, then e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive of the last 1000 messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
