> The ability to spoof will be made even harder once Salmon's "magic > signatures" become broadly used (and they will be because they are so > fantastically simple to implement!).
interesting - and very simple. +1 . <snip> > This is not "tangentially" > addressing the issue. This is making a fundamental architectural change in > the nature of the relationship between senders and receivers. >> - the spam thing is a red herring, no actual >> security is built into the system. > Re-read my comment above and re-read the specifications of PSHB and related > protocols. In this claim, you are simply wrong. A recipient-controlled > routing system is inherently more resistant to spam than a sender-controlled > system is. i get it. it is much more difficult. time will tell though: i'm simply observing that the money is in the hands of the spammers and that only time will tell if, once successful, one system is really far superior to the other. i remain unconvinced that smart (-er than me) well funded people won't find simple ways to rig the system quickly, which is why signatures are so important. >> i wouldn't wish xmpp integration on anyone. > Beware... This sort of cheap, toss-off comment makes it look like you might > not be as familiar with the issues as you probably would like people to > believe... ?? why is everyone so defensive here? i've run xmpp servers in production and they absolutely suck compared to running just about any http server. doesn't everyone know this? -- -a -- be kind whenever possible... it is always possible - h.h. the 14th dalai lama
