On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Andrew Newton wrote:
3) The first solution in 9.5 seems to be talking about a service that does not
exist and lends itself to abuse, and the second seems to be fairly
heavy-weight and possibly not very effective (at least from their limited
descriptions). Perhaps those paragraphs should be struck and the section
should be left with only a description of the attack.
The second (detecting bulk same-signature mail) effectively already exists
in the form of Vernon Scryver's distributed checksum clearinghouse.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR
GOOD.