On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:56:42PM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote:
Is it really necessary to take this arrogant and abusive tone?
Consider it exasperation at seeing this FUSSP brought up yet *again*,
long after it was staked through the heart and buried at a crossroads.
Please see:
[1] Hashcash fails on inspection because attackers control vastly more
computing resources than defenders, by several orders of magnitude.
The idea behind Hascash is *not* that it will *stop* the flow: it, by
itself, most certainly will not. However, no successful security strategy
relies
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 02:52:21PM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote:
No, it is based upon the idea that a system could be implemented whereby
it would be impossible to avoid the payment.
It can't.
This idiotic idea resurfaces periodically (see hashcash and other
similar products of the wishful
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:15:19AM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
I realise I may well be just another stupid newbie in your eyes, so
please explain why something that can enforce a fixed amount of work to
each and every transaction on the SENDER's side is a bad idea by itself.
I've covered
On 3 Jan 09, at 18:23, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Mark Sapiro wrote:
That's not an apt analogy. The issue here is not whether a system can
be developed that would require mail delivery to be paid for. The
See: http://www.hashcash.org/
So it seems one way of guaranteeing
Also myt last comment, unless a listowner somehow believes this is
appropos for *this* list.
You're argument boils down to it's not wholly effective, and it's super
easy for the sspammer to overwhelm, so don't bother using it. The same
is true of every blocklist, blacklist, firewall, tarpit,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:56:40PM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
You're argument boils down to it's not wholly effective, [snip]
Actually, my primary argument is that it has/would have zero effect.
There's no point in deploying something that the enemy completely
defeated years ago.
My
From: Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 02:52:21PM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote:
No, it is based upon the idea that a system could be implemented
whereby
it would be impossible to avoid the payment.
This idiotic idea... the wishful thinking of clueless newbies... one
of the
on 1/4/09 7:27 AM, Rich Kulawiec said:
This idiotic idea resurfaces periodically (see hashcash and other
similar products of the wishful thinking of clueless newbies [1]).
It is one of the very stupidest anti-spam ideas -- and there's a lot
of competition for that honor, unfortunately. [2]
on 1/4/09 11:15 AM, J.A. Terranson said:
Hascash is another of the various forms of tarpitting, which also does
not stop anyone, but it does slow it down, and every little bit helps.
This subject is off-topic for this list. Please consult the archives of
spam-l and the ASRG, and if you
on 1/4/09 2:44 PM, Jan Steinman said:
Perhaps I know just enough about the underpinnings of the Internet to
see the possibilities, rather than the impossibilities. Sorry if my
examples were impractical, but I continue to dis-believe that it would
be impossible to implement a system whereby
Jan Steinman writes:
Perhaps I know just enough about the underpinnings of the Internet to
see the possibilities, rather than the impossibilities. Sorry if my
examples were impractical, but I continue to dis-believe that it would
be impossible to implement a system whereby spam
From: Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:15:43AM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote:
I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent
if it
would reduce spam to near-zero.
This is a thoroughly-discredited, utterly broken idea... based on
the ludicrous
notion
Jan Steinman wrote:
From: Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:15:43AM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote:
I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent
if it
would reduce spam to near-zero.
This is a thoroughly-discredited, utterly broken idea... based on
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Mark Sapiro wrote:
That's not an apt analogy. The issue here is not whether a system can
be developed that would require mail delivery to be paid for. The
See: http://www.hashcash.org/
//alif
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin_at_mfn.org
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:15:43AM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote:
I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if it
would reduce spam to near-zero.
This is a thoroughly-discredited, utterly broken idea which, unfortunately,
seems to keep coming back like a bad penny. It is
137
138
139
445
512
520
1080
Al
- Original Message -
From: Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
To: Bernie Cosell ber...@fantasyfarm.com
Cc: mailman-users@python.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam
Bernie Cosell writes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 24, 2008, at 2:33 AM, Brad Knowles wrote:
on 12/23/08 2:14 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull said:
And the primary maintainer of a piece of software which AFAIK
continues to be a source of backscatter might want to be a little
careful about
Brad Knowles writes:
on 12/23/08 2:14 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull said:
And the primary maintainer of a piece of software which AFAIK
continues to be a source of backscatter might want to be a little
careful about suggesting that vendors be billed
We give the list owners and
On Thu, 2008-12-25 at 00:06 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
So I don't think we even want to joke about financial penalties for
spamming, because in the end it's applications like Mailman and this
list itself that will end up as collateral damage in any such solution.
If you wanted to be
On 24 Dec 2008 at 11:11, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
Charging (someone) per email, while it's an attractive concept, seems to
be kind of a technological mismatch. There are paradigms that can be
associated with hard-copy paper mail that just don't apply to email.
For instance, how do you deal
Bernie Cosell writes:
I'm not sure these are fatal-flaw problems
They're not.
[same as with the USPS
Aye, there's the rub. The USPS is, even today, a state(-protected)
monopoly. Email is not, and cannot be, unless you make the whole
Internet a state monopoly.
... Email has evolved
On Thu, 2008-12-25 at 10:29 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Including a national monopoly email provider, I guess? What I
interpret Lindsay to be saying is that for Christmas cards you can
treat the USPS as a well-behaved black box (in the systems analysis
sense; it may or may not do the
Lindsay Haisley writes:
Perhaps the payment-autentication system could be developed in the
context of a distributed database resembling that used for DNS, or more
like DNSSEC, perhaps.
I don't deny that technologically you could do this, but the question
remains: who would actually pay?
Alex writes:
Well, Comcast just blocked port 25 at my house and required to use port 587
for outgoing mail. I guess charging money per email is next?
No, why do you think that follows? Blocking port 25 simply means that
you can't spam without going through Comcast. If they thought that
On 25 Dec 2008 at 10:29, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Bernie Cosell writes:
[same as with the USPS
Aye, there's the rub. The USPS is, even today, a state(-protected)
monopoly. Email is not, and cannot be, unless you make the whole
Internet a state monopoly.
What I was suggesting was
On 25 Dec 2008 at 12:41, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Again, assuming that traffic patterns stay the same, this is all very
nice for AOL, which would have a substantial positive balance of
payments. But it would suck rotten eggs for open source projects,
whose primary interaction with the mail
on 12/24/08 11:12 PM, Bernie Cosell said:
This is wildly offtopic for this list and I, too, am going to stop
prolonging it,
If you want to continue this conversation, try the IETF/IRTF Anti-Spam
Research Group. John Levine has mentioned that everyone over there is
going through the
on 12/22/08 11:05 AM, Lindsay Haisley said:
I was intrigued by your comments on the economics of spam, which
prompted me to introduce pre-filtering on one of my servers, possibly
later on both of them. Where did you get the information, in
particular, that there's an income flow based on
From: Lindsay Haisley fmouse-mail...@fmp.com
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 10:15 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
I was intrigued by your comments on the economics of spam...
This doesn't directly answer your question (i.e., it's even further
OT), but I found it interesting.
Jan Steinman writes:
I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if
it would reduce spam to near-zero.
Only problem is, you'll have to go to the bank and fill out the
electronic funds transfer form for each $.1 you pay.
Nanopayments are not a solved problem.
On 23 Dec 08, at 10:45, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Jan Steinman writes:
I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if
it would reduce spam to near-zero.
Only problem is, you'll have to go to the bank and fill out the
electronic funds transfer form for each $.1
Jan Steinman wrote:
Besides, individuals wouldn't be doing the payments, their providers
would. The key is SMTP servers -- THEY would be the ones that would
have to handle the accounting. And arguably, they might be the ones
receiving payment anyway, since they are the ones ultimately
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 11:24 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Also, such a scheme is fraught with all the problems that currently
affect SPF, DKIM, etc with forwarded mail.
It's always amazing to me that Internet e-mail works at all these days,
what with spam, viruses, large software companies trying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
And how does this work when the actual spam message is sent by a
malware infected computer belonging to an arguably innocent user and
is sent by direct SMTP to the recipient's MX?
Bill the OS vendor
Barry Warsaw writes:
Bill the OS vendor of the infected machine. :)
In my case that was Linus and Debian, although the fault belonged to
the authors of Smail 3.1.100 who documented and parsed an option to
deny all forwarding, but didn't implement it.
And the primary maintainer of a piece of
on 12/23/08 2:14 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull said:
And the primary maintainer of a piece of software which AFAIK
continues to be a source of backscatter might want to be a little
careful about suggesting that vendors be billed
We give the list owners and site administrator the option of
On 24 Dec 2008 at 3:45, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Jan Steinman writes:
I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if
it would reduce spam to near-zero.
Only problem is, you'll have to go to the bank and fill out the
electronic funds transfer form for each
On 23 Dec 2008 at 14:55, Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
And how does this work when the actual spam message is sent by a
malware infected computer belonging to an arguably innocent user and
is sent by
Brad, (or anyone),
Please excuse me if this is a bit OT.
I was intrigued by your comments on the economics of spam, which
prompted me to introduce pre-filtering on one of my servers, possibly
later on both of them. Where did you get the information, in
particular, that there's an income flow
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
I was intrigued by your comments on the economics of spam, which
prompted me to introduce pre-filtering on one of my servers, possibly
later on both of them. Where did you get the information, in
particular, that there's an income flow based on successful SMTP
delivery?
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 10:15 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
I was intrigued by your comments on the economics of spam, which
prompted me to introduce pre-filtering on one of my servers, possibly
later on both of them. Where did you get the information, in
particular, that
42 matches
Mail list logo
