3 ms·
That does not sound terrible useful. For one, it'll only work if both sender and receiver use it. Which means for 99.99% of mail traffic right now, it is utter
by tscs37 9y ago
That does not sound terrible useful.
For one, it'll only work if both sender and receiver use it. Which means for 99.99% of mail traffic right now, it is utterly meaningless.
edit: Plus you also literally wasted everyone's time and energy.
I'd rather favor some kind of mechanism like grey-lists that don't require sender opt-in otherwise it'll be a dead technology just like GPG. (You can probably count the number of GPG emails within 1000 average mails on one hand)
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoWe make incremental change. Adoption starts slow, then some middle players pick it up, one big player grabs it and then it proliferates. I've been working on a mail client for some time and I have plans to write a mail server, and both will have first class, opt-out support for hashcash.
- tscs37 9y agoThat sounds like a lovely pipe-dream. I severely doubt any big player picks it up on grounds of it being cheaper and less energy intensive to simply greylist or blacklist.
- amelius 9y agoHow about sending (by email) a link to a proof-of-work-website, so the hash function can be computed in javascript/wasm in a browser? Anyway, I agree on the waste of time+energy.