Tony writes: > Which is precisely the goal. It is not so extreme > as to make routine mail unusable, but extreme enough > to make random bulk mail not worth the cost.
Point taken, although I think conventional encryption would probably a better choice for this purpose. I think, though, that a more effective method would be to find something that one can require on each message and that is not trivially easy for a computer to do automatically. For example, the various admininstrations passing through the White House have long had a policy of establishing a "secret number" or similar text that must be placed on any incoming letter that is to be forwarded directly to the President or his family with minimal screening. The President and family then give this number to a select few people. Any correspondence without the number goes through all the usual screening. This works because the number is an out-of-band datum that the average sender is not likely to have. It is communicated from human being to human being, and isn't to be found anywhere in public. So it cannot be automatically added by a machine, nor can unauthorized people add it. A simple e-mail implementation of this would be to place a random string in the subject line of a message intended for a specific recipient that serves the same purpose as this "secret number." The string would be different for each recipient, and the only way to obtain it would be through some out-of-band process (such as contacting the recipient by phone, or something). Since there would be no record of this anywhere that spammers could harvest, it would be impossible for spammers to include these numbers on outgoing mail. Very simple, and very effective. It would, however, be nice to have e-mail clients that automated this, by allow for a secret number field in address books that would make it possible to insert them automatically on outgoing mail (most clients already provide a way to filter for such numbers on incoming mail). Digital signatures and similar authentication would work but are overkill. All you need is some bit of information that spammers cannot harvest, and the above random string fits that purpose. Spammers might pick up your address on a newsgroup or Web site, but they'd have no way of discovering your secret number. > That simply provides message integrity ... Hash it and sign it with the public key of the recipient. That would work, because spammers would not have the public key, whereas legitimate senders would. However, I think the secret-number concept described above would be much similar and would be just as effective.
