--
Alan Brown wrote:
I just hope you're right
about the CPUs burning up - it doesn't happen when machines
are running OGR calculations, so I suspect that you just
ran into a particularly badly built example.
Eric S. Johansson
no, it was a stock Intel motherboard, CPU, CPU fan in a
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
The reason it's partly a cryptographic problem is forgeries.
Once everybody starts whitelisting, spammers are going to
start forging headers to pretend to come from big mailing lists
and popular machines and authors, so now you'll not only
need to
Ben Laurie wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
and in these schemes, where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ? remember that not all bulk email is spam by any means... or do
we end up with whitelists all over the place and the focus of attacks
moves to the ingress to the mailing lists
Richard Clayton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
But using your spam size, , the slowdown factor becomes roughly
73 times. So they would need 73 machines running full tilt all the time
to regain their old throughput.
Believe
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
the easynet.nl list (recently demised) listed nearly 700K machines that
had been detected (allegedly) sending spam... so since their detection
was not universal it would certainly be more than 700K :(
that is a nasty bit of news. I'll run some
Alan Brown wrote:
They are currently tracking around 1.5 million compromised machines.
*ouch*. on 24x7 both power and connectivity?
The Swen and blaster worms install various spamware and backdoors. These
have been estimated to have infected millions of machines worldwide and
later versions
Eric S. Johansson writes:
Ben Laurie wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
and in these schemes, where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ? remember that not all bulk email is spam by any means... or do
we end up with whitelists all over the place and the focus of attacks
moves
Eric S. Johansson writes:
Ben Laurie wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
and in these schemes, where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ? remember that not all bulk email is spam by any means... or do
we end up with whitelists all over the place and the focus of attacks
moves
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
The reason it's partly a cryptographic problem is forgeries.
Once everybody starts whitelisting, spammers are going to
start forging headers to pretend to come from big mailing lists
and popular machines and authors, so now you'll not only
need to
Richard Clayton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
But using your spam size, , the slowdown factor becomes roughly
73 times. So they would need 73 machines running full tilt all the time
to regain their old throughput.
Believe
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
the easynet.nl list (recently demised) listed nearly 700K machines that
had been detected (allegedly) sending spam... so since their detection
was not universal it would certainly be more than 700K :(
that is a nasty bit of news. I'll run some
--
Alan Brown wrote:
I just hope you're right
about the CPUs burning up - it doesn't happen when machines
are running OGR calculations, so I suspect that you just
ran into a particularly badly built example.
Eric S. Johansson
no, it was a stock Intel motherboard, CPU, CPU fan in a
Alan Brown wrote:
They are currently tracking around 1.5 million compromised machines.
*ouch*. on 24x7 both power and connectivity?
The Swen and blaster worms install various spamware and backdoors. These
have been estimated to have infected millions of machines worldwide and
later versions
Richard Clayton wrote:
and in these schemes, where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ? remember that not all bulk email is spam by any means... or do
we end up with whitelists all over the place and the focus of attacks
moves to the ingress to the mailing lists :(
He uses the
Ben Laurie wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
and in these schemes, where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ? remember that not all bulk email is spam by any means... or do
we end up with whitelists all over the place and the focus of attacks
moves to the ingress to the mailing lists
At 07:58 PM 12/30/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
This pennyblack silliness fails utterly to address the basic ontological
issue: that bits in transit are not being charged by the carriers (if by
their own choice, fine, but mostly it's because systems were set up in a
socialist scheme to ensure free
Scott Nelson wrote:
d*b
---
s
where: d = stamp delay in seconds
s = spam size in bytes
b = bandwidth in bytes per second
I don't understand this equation at all.
It's the rate limiting factor that counts, not a combination of
stamp speed + bandwidth.
well, stamp speed is method of
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
But using your spam size, , the slowdown factor becomes roughly
73 times. So they would need 73 machines running full tilt all the time
to regain their old throughput.
Believe me, the professionals have enough 0wned machines that this is
(The use of memory speed leads to an interesting notion: Functions that are
designed to be differentially expensive on different kinds of fielded hardware.
On a theoretical basis, of course, all hardware is interchangeable; but in
practice, something differentially expensive to calculate on an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
But using your spam size, , the slowdown factor becomes roughly
73 times. So they would need 73 machines running full tilt all the time
to regain their old throughput.
Believe me, the professionals
At 7:46 PM + 12/30/03, Richard Clayton wrote:
where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ?
A whitelist for my friends, etc...
Whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation
On Dec 30, 2003, at 1:01 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 7:46 PM + 12/30/03, Richard Clayton wrote:
where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ?
A whitelist for my friends, etc...
We're not moderated. Get used to it.
Or are people _again_ spamming the Cypherpunks list with crap
At 07:46 PM 12/30/2003 +, Richard Clayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[what about mailing lists]
Obviously you'd have to whitelist anybody's list you're joining
if you don't want your spam filters to robo-discard it.
moan
I never understand why people think spam is a technical problem :( let
(I have removed the various other mailing lists. People, please stop
cross-posting to all of Hettinga's lists, plus Perrypunks, plus this
CAM-RAM list.)
On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:11 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 07:46 PM 12/30/2003 +, Richard Clayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[what about mailing
Scott Nelson wrote:
d*b
---
s
where: d = stamp delay in seconds
s = spam size in bytes
b = bandwidth in bytes per second
I don't understand this equation at all.
It's the rate limiting factor that counts, not a combination of
stamp speed + bandwidth.
well, stamp speed is method of
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
But using your spam size, , the slowdown factor becomes roughly
73 times. So they would need 73 machines running full tilt all the time
to regain their old throughput.
Believe me, the professionals have enough 0wned machines that this is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
But using your spam size, , the slowdown factor becomes roughly
73 times. So they would need 73 machines running full tilt all the time
to regain their old throughput.
Believe me, the professionals
At 7:46 PM + 12/30/03, Richard Clayton wrote:
where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps
from ?
A whitelist for my friends, etc...
Whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation
(I have removed the various other mailing lists. People, please stop
cross-posting to all of Hettinga's lists, plus Perrypunks, plus this
CAM-RAM list.)
On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:11 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 07:46 PM 12/30/2003 +, Richard Clayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[what about mailing
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 09:37 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Adam Back wrote:
The 2nd memory [3] bound paper (by Dwork, Goldber and Naor) finds a
flaw in in the first memory-bound function paper (by Adabi, Burrows,
Manasse, and Wobber) which admits a time-space trade-off, proposes an
improved memory-bound
At 01:43 PM 12/29/03 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 09:37 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Adam Back wrote:
The 2nd memory [3] bound paper (by Dwork, Goldber and Naor) finds a
flaw in in the first memory-bound function paper (by Adabi, Burrows,
Manasse, and Wobber) which admits
At 01:43 PM 12/29/03 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 09:37 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Adam Back wrote:
The 2nd memory [3] bound paper (by Dwork, Goldber and Naor) finds a
flaw in in the first memory-bound function paper (by Adabi, Burrows,
Manasse, and Wobber) which admits
32 matches
Mail list logo
