On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 05:33:52PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote
If a person unknown to me can send me an email that I want to receive
(and I want them to be able to), then that person can send me unwanted
email (and I don't want them to be able to do that, but I see no way
to stop it without also preventing the possibility of wanted email).
You've hit the nail on the head there. This has given me an
inspiration that'll appear as a long message in a day or so.
So I think the best way to attack spam is to make sending email
expensive (in some way---this may involve computational cost rather
than some kind of financial framework) such that anybody sending me
email thinks a bit first (and so it won't be worthwhile sending to
large numbers of people). So this would be attacking the volume part
of usual definitions of spam.
A few problems...
1) I don't throw away a pefectly good computer and buy the
latest/greatest every year. This email is coming from a 433 mhz machine
with 128 megs of RAM. How do I compare with someone who's just bought a
512 meg machine that runs at 3 gigahertz ?
2) A beowolf cluster of cast-off 1 gigahertz machines will blow the
"computational cost" to smithereens.
--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg