On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 17:12, John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
It is possible to defend against this threat, but not cheaply, since
the defense requires a robust transaction system that can serialize
the thousand requests, approve one, and reject the other 999, while
still providing service to the rest of their customers.
Nonsense. You just make the purchased stamp dependent upon the address of
the recipient, for example by hashing the To: address inside the
cryptographic stamp when it's minted.
Aw, come on. Please don't tell me I have to explain why this model has
the exact same problem.
Go on, indulge us. Explain why stamps that are hashed to the recipient can
still be spent on multiple spams unless a network transaction is carried out
for every one.
Let's go ahead and assume that the stamp also has an expiry date encoded
into it, mmkay?
mathew
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg