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
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
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
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)
*
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 could
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
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.
moan
I never understand why
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
