On May 8, 2003 at 19:29 ca+asrg(_at_)esmtp(_dot_)org (Claus Assmann) wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2003, Barry Shein wrote:
Why not just give each person a different mail address (presumably
aliased to your one true address) and use the mbox:sender pair as the
"consent token". Trivially revoked, just alias it to /dev/null.
Because that causes exponential explosion of addresses.
Well, "exponential explosion" is meant to be a scary phrase, right?
I don't think it's exponential by any means, besides that's only a
description of the curve between here and there, "there" being
wherever it plateaus. Unless you mean unboundedly exponential, but
that's not likely.
THE POINT IS (I'm not just giving you a hard time, trust me) that
that growth in addresses is a problem for spammers...it's a feature!
Who else has to manage them all except in the most trivial way, for
example one-to-one mappings of who to really deliver this to.
But my math tells me that a log base 2 look up says I can find one
address in a list of a trillion in about 40 probes, worst case.
But the spammer has to try all trillion to find me, worst case.
I'm trying
to use it, but it causes problems as soon as I send mail to a group
of people (esp. when the members of those groups change).
I believe you, but isn't that just a weakness in the MUA software not
accomodating this approach? SMOP (Simple Matter Of Programming.)
Granted that's a practical consideration, but one should try to be
clear whether they're making a pragmatic or theoretical objection.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg