On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:16:22 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver
<vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> writes:
To: Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>,
asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
if not singularly empowered, to enforce the payment mechanism at
the receiving point.
Ok, but what about the main question? What is the minimum speed CPU
that you will allow to send mail? Do you expect everyone from now on
\epsilon. A hashcash scheme with an 'out' that allows random nonces
does not incur the full cost is still practical and requires little to
no CPU time.
to buy equal speed CPUs? How else do you ensure that the spammers
don't have CPUs that are 10,000 times faster than spam targets?
This is unlikely. Current CPU's are 3ghz, who runs a 300khz CPU
anymore? Even a Commodore 64 or an Apple ][ is faster!
I remember recently reading about a primitive, different from partial
hash collision, that is limited by memory bandwidth, not CPU
speed. Memory bandwidth varies much less that CPU performance.
I have not looked at it, but it may help deal with this issue.
The reason is mostly that there are lots of arm chair generals but fewer
competent programmers.
I can't disagree; standards committees, netnews groups, and bars are
always filled with non-players eager to tell the players how to play.
However, a willingess to admit and deal with fundamental design problems
such as the span of real CPU speeds is part of being a competent
A competent programmer also tries to keep their numbers accurate
within two orders of magnitude. Fast CPU's are 3ghz. The origional XT
(way before my time) was 4.77mhz, or only 600x slower. Do there exist
many widely deployed systems email systems that are <25mhz? Thats only
120x slower than current machines, not the 10,000x as claimed.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg