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

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

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

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

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: [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: [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

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

>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 i

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

(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 x86

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

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 trivi

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

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 r

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

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)

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

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 f