On Sunday 01 March 2015 23:43:25 Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > Am 01.03.2015 um 23:25 schrieb Ingo Klöcker <kloec...@kde.org>: > > And most spam is sent by bots. The spammers don't really care how much > > energy the bots burn. Yes, the amount of spam might decrease because > > the bots cannot hammer out that many bitmessages as SMTP messages per > > second, but your hypothesis that BitMessage would get rid of spam is > > unrealistic. > > I don't really agree with that. The goal is that the proof of work for a > single message takes 4 minutes.
On what kind of hardware? A high-end gamer PC? Or a low end mobile phone? > At that rate, sending spam really is not > profitable. In 4 minutes, spammers can currently send hundreds of > thousands of mails. At that rate, they can afford to send it to every > address they can find. With only one mail per machine every 4 minutes, > they really need to be careful where to send it. Let's assume they have > 10000 machines (which is unrealistic - most machines are behind a dialup > connection from which no provider will accept mail). There are much larger bot nets, e.g the ramnit bot net apparently controlled 3.2 million (!) machines (see http://heise.de/-2559388, in German). And with regard to providers not accepting those mails you seem to be missing that the bots simply (ab)use the mail accounts of the bot owners. > That's only 2500 > mails a minute. If global spam were just 2500 spam messages a minute, > spam would hardly be a problem. Of course, 800,000 spam messages per minute is still many magnitudes less than now. I don't see BitMessage killing spam. But it will surely kill mailing lists. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
