On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Justin Shore wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Perhaps, but it also seems like moving an RBL onto a P2P network would > > making poisoning the RBL far too easy... > > That's what I was getting ready to suggest. As it stands now we have at > least somewhat of an assurance that the zone we're working with isn't > tainted.
Web of trust, yada yada. Still distributed, still resiliant. And/Or, encrypt the zones/updates. Admittedly this is all off-the-cuff and I haven't given it much thought(scalability and performance issues immediately come to mind,) but it might be an interesting enough problem to sit down and research/think about at some point. It certainly would be interesting to find some more "substantially non-infringing" uses for P2P. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/