No complains from anyone? So we can expect this feature soon? On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:05 PM, <bbackde at googlemail.com> wrote: > This sounds like a good idea! No matter who uses it (fms, frost, thaw) > could at least be sure > that the sending costed the sender some cpu time. It could also > restrict the amount of sent messages > at all, considering the same cpu time. So it becomes more expensive > and annoying for the spammer. > Now its quite easy for him, he could even play crysis in parallell ;) > > > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Michael Rogers <m.rogers at cs.ucl.ac.uk> > wrote: > > bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > > > If I understand this correct, the node of the sender will have to > > > compute a valid > > > hash cash before actually sending the key? And receivers can easily > check the > > > hash cash and reject keys without a valid hash cash? > > > > Right - inserts without valid hash cash won't even be forwarded. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > > Tech mailing list > > Tech at freenetproject.org > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > > > > > > > > -- > __________________________________________________ > GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A) > Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de > Fingerprint: > 477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A > __________________________________________________ >
-- __________________________________________________ GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A) Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de Fingerprint: 477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A __________________________________________________