Fw: namedroppers, continued

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Cunningham" <billc44(_at_)citynet(_dot_)net>
To: "Lloyd Wood" <L(_dot_)Wood(_at_)eim(_dot_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>; 
"Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar
(UMKC-Student)" <saq66(_at_)umkc(_dot_)edu>
Cc: "Fred Baker" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>; <dwork(_at_)almaden(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<namedroppers(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lloyd Wood" <l(_dot_)wood(_at_)eim(_dot_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
> To: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <saq66(_at_)umkc(_dot_)edu>
> Cc: "Fred Baker" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
> <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>; <dwork(_at_)almaden(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; 
> <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
> <namedroppers(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 5:29 PM
> Subject: RE: namedroppers, continued
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar  (UMKC-Student) wrote:
> >
> > > " If I don't know you, and you want your e-mail to appear in my
> > >   inbox, then you must attach to your message an easily verified
> > >  "proof of computational effort", just for me and just for this
> > >  message.
> > >
> > > If the proof of effort requires, say, 10 seconds to compute, then
> > > the economics of sending spam are radically altered, as a single
> > > machine can send only 8,000 messages per day.
> > tracking moore's law could be a problem.
> >
> > > The recent proliferation of spam has lead to a renewed interest in
> > > these ideas.  This work is about both the choice of functions that
> > > can be used to yield easily verifiable proofs of computational
> > > effort, and architectures for implementing the proof of effort
> > > approach.  Filtering and/or forcing senders to pay in other
> > > currencies, such as human attention and money, will be covered as
> > > time permits"
> > "Sender pays" is good. The penny black stamp effectively introduced a
> > flat-rate tax on sending letters, rather than a variable-rate tax on
> > receiving them, effectively turning mail into a common good available
> > to all society.
> Lloyd, in the US we pay .37 to mail a first-class letter. I don't know how
> many pence you pay in the UK but we still have "spam" bulk rate unwanted
> solicitations. Forcing the sender to pay doesn't solve a spam problem. I
> don't see how in could. It would force everyone to have to pay a price.
>
>
> > The government also undercut private messaging operators and
> > effectively put them out of business, but could use money earned
> > towards other services for society (having simplified and saved on its
> > operational costs along the way).
> >
> > So, computing as a social good - you want to send an email to someone
> > you're unknown to, you've got to provide proof that you're
> > participating in SETI(_at_)home, searching for big primes, in a distributed
> > crypto challenge, working on processing public GIS information,
> > autocomparing versions of typed ascii out-of-copyright texts (or raw
> > CD rips?) for accuracy, processing gene data or archived NASA tapes or
> > otherwise doing good things -- guess this would make each computing
> > charity (give us your spare cycles) the ticket server or PKI manager,
> > although you might want to try distributing that too.
> >
> > > for more details
> > > http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack
> > I don't see any discussion there of the computation as a social good,
> > or computational functions as utility functions. Microsoft, eh?
> >
> > http://www.glassinesurfer.com/f/gsrowlandhill.shtml
> > -- and here's the obligatory mention of Jeremy Bentham.
> >
> > L.
> >
> > <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L(_dot_)Wood(_at_)ee(_dot_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>