Besides, can't you achieve something vaguely similar with simple
tarpitting?
If I understand tarpitting, I believe it is slowing down the SMTP
communication with the sending mail server. Even if each transmission were
slowed to one minute per message, consider a massive server that can be
partit
Status: RO
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:04:16 -0800
To: Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:01 PM 3/21/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrenc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 07:31:34PM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> The providing of a token allowing computationally-free passage to verified
> subscribers is trivial to implement.
Agreed. My point, perhaps awkwardly-worded, is that it's important from
the perspective of mailing list operators to
At 04:24 AM 3/23/2003 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> To date, my personal pet has been payment in computationally intensive
> solutions to questions posed by the recipient. This forced expenditure of
> effort, even if minor, removes the spammer's incent
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 03:21:46PM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> > To date, my personal pet has been payment in computationally intensive
> > solutions to questions posed by the recipient. This forced expenditure of
> > effort, even if minor, remov
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
>
> > To date, my personal pet has been payment in computationally intensive
> > solutions to questions posed by the recipient. This forced expenditure of
> > effort, even if minor, removes the spammer's in
At 08:24 AM 3/23/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
> >Finding a way to collect payments for using the real scarce resource,
> >which is the recipient's time, at prices set by the recipient,
> >has some chance of succeeding. There are of course many ways to
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
> The idea if for stamps to be created at the client end. For most people
> that is not the SMTP server. Even for Web-based email, I envision the
> client being "encouraged" by the ISP to do the computation work on their
> own HW, perhaps via a Java appl
At 07:10 PM 3/22/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 03:49 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:18:10 -0500
From: Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> To date, my personal pet has been payment in computationally intensive
> solutions to questions posed by the recipient. This forced expenditure of
> effort, even if minor, removes the spammer's incentive for sending of
> email: the nature of the beast
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 03:49 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:18:10 -0500
From: Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM
Research Proposal
M
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:18:10 -0500
From: Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research
Proposal
Mail-Followup-To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
At 01:22 PM 3/22/2003 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 02:18 PM 03/22/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
> I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not
That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble.
I simply be
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> > The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the
> > real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent
> > out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and
> > subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the lis
At 02:18 PM 03/22/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
> I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not
That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble.
I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infr
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
> I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not
That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble.
I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure
level a bad way to address spam.
> t
At 01:24 PM 3/22/2003 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the
> real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent
> out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and
> subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list
> The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the
> real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent
> out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and
> subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be
> accompanied by payment, which would be s
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
> The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the
> real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent
Which in the real world will never happen. Sender-pays, if deployed,
will end up being something like MS's Penny Black, wh
--
On 21 Mar 2003 at 23:01, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
> We all want to get rid of spam. I think most folks on this
> list are in favor of using market dynamics to influence
> behaviour. I think adding an artificial fee to sending email
> is stupid. It is creating false scarcity to fix a broken
At 11:01 PM 3/21/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
Steve,
I've been watching your views on ASRG, and honestly, I have to say
Sender Pays is top on my list for Bad Ideas for reforming email.
We all want to get rid of spam. I think most folks on this list are
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
> >Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
> >
> >IBM researchers say both approaches miss the target--that the software
[...]
> >up with another approach: Make spammers pay to send messages. It sounds
[...]
Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
By Tony Kontzer, InformationWeek, InternetWeek
Mar 20, 2003 (8:45 PM)
URL: http://www.internetweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=7900141
Companies and consumers alike have been looking to two primary aids in the
battle to stem the
23 matches
Mail list logo
