Matthew Wall writes:
To which Matthew Wall offers this response on Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:06:17
-0500:
This would seem to me to be a trivial (and worthwhile) extension, but not
something that belongs in the base spec.
Any other comments?
Adam, will you be at the Minneapolis IETF?
Unfortunately not, no. Further feed back and discussion of the merit
of forming a technical anti-spam group under IETF requested!
As started to come out in my response to Tim Showalter there is some
complexity once you start to think seriously about using hashcash:
- mailing lists
need a way to by pass postage requirement for list software
- forwarding
need to be able to forward messages to your other email address
without needing to pay yourself hashcash
- possibility for ecash (with real $ value) as postage
- privacy
need to retain privacy if ISP side allow lists are maintained
I think that technical means to deal with UBE are important because
without them we get calls for all manner of anti-UBE laws which
encourage excessive involvment and intrusion of the legal systems into
email and the internet. In my view laws rarely make anything better.
Adam