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

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 a

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

-- 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

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

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 remo

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

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 r

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

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 me,

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

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 "fre

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

(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 maili

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

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 f

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

-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 profe

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