From: J C Lawrence <claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu>
John Fenley <pontifier(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> But enough about that... Does anyone have a reason that my system
> could not be used as a loose framework?
Quite a few actually, but that gets into questions of information
theory, protocol design, zero knowledge systems, etc that I'd much
rather point you at generally than spend my time explaining what so many
others have done so well.
ok...
After some reaserch...
Information theory: How to make sure your message gets to it's destination
unchanged... The internet allows this regularly.
Protocol design: What about how the whois database worked? I can't find much
data on it, but it worked for a long time as a single database.
zero knowledge systems: I don't see how that applies to a public database.
> Forget my bias against spam boxes. Assume it can be funded. Assume it
> could be distributed in nature (cashes or something).
Those are neither cheap or easy assumptions. They are also rather
critical assumptions. Getting buy-in is not just fundamental, but is a
prerequisite for any proposal to be considered seriously.
Adding distribution to a protocol system is not just a matter of
sprinkling magic "distribute-this" pixie dust. Its hard work, and
frequently impossible without gutting the starting premises.
Pixie dust: Anybody can sign up to recieve dialy updates to the database,
and lists of valid entrys should be available. creating a private mirror
would save a company bandwidth.
John Fenley
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg