On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Dan Boresjo wrote:
On Monday 08 December 2003 8:25 am, Bill Rockefeller wrote:
Erm, all of this is old hat. There's already a solution that's been
published. Kills all spam, free for all to implement. No central registry
or
costs beyond simple implementation at a server level.
http://www.qyv.com
Erm, what about forwarding/remailing? They would get the same CPU load as
spammers if the ultimate receivers are using QYV.
Worse - it simply won't work as advertised. There is an embedded
assumption that the spammers don't have access to enough hardware to
defeat a computational complexity defense.
The assumption is false.
_1/3_ of spam is now sent from hijacked PCs. A tactic sufficient to keep
1, 100 or even 1000 spammer machines at bay will fail completely when
faced with hundreds of thousands to _millions_ of attacking machines.
Spammers can still pump their billions of daily emails out.
Here is an interesting article about 'next generation' spammers moving to
p2p networks of hijacked machines.
http://news.com.com/2100-12_3-5116130.html?tag=nefd_top
--
Benjamin Franz
On that of which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.
---Wittgenstein
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡