10 ms·
Your poll-and-fetch suggestion sounds really interesting. Even if is not combined with a widely used reputation system, it would greatly increase the cost for s
by kijin 10y ago
Your poll-and-fetch suggestion sounds really interesting. Even if is not combined with a widely used reputation system, it would greatly increase the cost for spammers by requiring them to stay online indefinitely. It's basically graylisting on steroids, but without the annoying delay that graylisting imposes on every sender.
- rakoo 10y agoIt's interesting to note that this idea isn't completely new, and raises some questions as noted by djb: https://cr.yp.to/im2000.html https://cr.yp.to/im2000.html
- dredmorbius 10y agoThanks for that. Yes, djb has thought through a lot of matters of trust and ought be considered. I'll take a look at that, I think I've read it before.
- dredmorbius 10y agoAnd, yes, I've seen the IM2000 proposal before, it's undoubtedly influenced my thinking, though I didn't have it in mind writing above. I'd really like to see a further exploration of the concept. djb's essay is still only a very rough outline.
- dredmorbius 10y agoBingo. Mind that that cost can be met by some spammers, as it's effectively how a number of present online systems work. But in general, spammers tend to be taken down, and you remove the fire, cram, and forget mechanism of mail blasters, or the sparse, wide botnet model, where a given node emits only a relatively small number of messages. Adding reputation to the mix strikes me as the secret sauce though.