Re: why "penny black" etc. are not very useful

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: > Legitimate stamp generation would have to be distinguished, perhaps > by code signing or some Touring test. A sufficiently clever virus > writer with root access might be able commandeer the legitimate stamp > generator. If this happens, periodic r

Re: why "penny black" etc. are not very useful

At 11:12 AM + 12/31/03, Ben Laurie wrote: Perry E. Metzger wrote: In my opinion, the various hashcash-to-stop-spam style schemes are not very useful, because spammers now routinely use automation to break into vast numbers of home computers and use them to send their spam. They're not paying fo

Re: [ISN] Oh Dan Geer, where art thou?

Ellen Messmer, in Network World, writes of Dan Geer: Whatever happens, don't expect this loose cannon of the Internet to go quietly into that dark night. So -- If those who raise obvious questions are "loose cannon," what then are the technologists who agreed with the report but chose not to sign

Re: why "penny black" etc. are not very useful

Perry E. Metzger wrote: In my opinion, the various hashcash-to-stop-spam style schemes are not very useful, because spammers now routinely use automation to break into vast numbers of home computers and use them to send their spam. They're not paying for CPU time or other resources, so they won't c

Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project

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 stamp

Re: Difference between TCPA-Hardware and a smart card (was: example: secure computing kernel needed)

David Wagner writes: > So it seems that third-party-directed remote attestation is really where > the controversy is. Owner-directed remote attestation doesn't have these > policy tradeoffs. > > Finally, I'll come back to the topic you raised by noting that your > example application is one that

Re: hiding attestation from the consumer

>There isn't really any security benefit obtained by hiding >the content of the attestation _from the party providing it_! This statement reveals confusion between the "parties". There are at least three parties involved in an attestation: * The DRM'd product vendor (somewhere on the net) *

Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: > 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. > > > > >I never unders

Re: [ISN] Oh Dan Geer, where art thou?

Hi All, I hope that those who talk aloud ,especially against the powerful survive. Else the technology which was supposed to give democracy the boost - Internet would be crushed -by the forces who believe that voices of dissent should be silenced. To add to the injury would be the death of ope

Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project

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. I never understand why people think spam is a technical problem :( let alone

Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project

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 The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 F