John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Actually, it's not "exactly" the same: though the "bank" has a very
similar problem, encoding the recipient MTA would mean that there's a
test the recipient MTA could do before submitting to the "bank".
I'm a bit open on this issue, but I'm disinclined to change the spec
before we get some research experience. I do think it wise for the "bank"
to ask what receiving MTA the token is destined for, but it seems to me
that
- whether it actually encodes that in the token, and
- whether it tells the receiving MTA how to decode it
are issues we shouldn't specify yet.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg