On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 04:26:39PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
David Maxwell <david(_at_)crlf(_dot_)net>:
Basing an anti-spam mechanism on technology have/have-nots would seem to
be a difficult balance to achieve, when the spammers have financial
incentive, and I don't.
These are damn good, solid points.
I'm still in favor of acknowledging the existence of hash-cash ideas in the
challenge-response section, but you've done an excellent job of arguing
that they're not actually a good idea.
I didn't mean to imply that any idea should be excluded from review. I'm
very much in favour of the documents being thoroughly inclusive, and
covering the good and bad points of each method of attacking the spam
problem.
On the gripping hand, this argument is out of scope for the document.
I think that the relevant argument is whether the question of hard costs
(and the cases where economies of scale might overcome the hard costs
for the spammer) might need to be covered under 'Balance of Burdens' and
'Impact on Participants'.
Perhaps each proposed solution should include a statment about how much
overhead on bandwidth/storage/processing is imposed by the suggested
changes.
--
David Maxwell, david(_at_)vex(_dot_)net|david(_at_)maxwell(_dot_)net --> The
only difference I see
between voodoo and marketing research is that voodoo sometimes works!
- Leonard Stern
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg