4 ms·

> Who do you think has to and can spend more compute or money, well-trusted Google or a small player? Far from a silver bullet. i'm not even a big fan of hashc

> Who do you think has to and can spend more compute or money, well-trusted Google or a small player? Far from a silver bullet. i'm not even a big fan of hashcash, but i don't think you understand it, or how it could fit in as a component of a broader spam mitigation system. (for better or worse) google wouldn't need to compute hashcash for their outgoing emails, because they have DKIM and a solid reputation. nor is its computational power somehow at odds with that of smaller players.

Avamander 4y ago
> i don't think you understand it, or how it could fit in as a component of a broader spam mitigation system. It's not that I don't understand, I know how it won't. > google wouldn't need to compute hashcash for their outgoing emails, because they have DKIM and a solid reputation. Great, so what's the point? Small players would have to pay Google to deliver mail :D > computational power somehow at odds with that of smaller players. As I said in my other comment, either botnet devices can send tens if not hundreds of spam letters, or it's going to be slow and/or expensive for all the legitimate small senders. You really can't have both.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > It's not that I don't understand, I know how it won't. You really don't understand it, because you're unable to provide counterarguments to specific explanations of how it would fit in with a larger anti-spam system, and because you say things that are clearly false to someone who does understand it. > Great, so what's the point? Small players would have to pay Google to deliver mail :D ...such as this, which is false. Nobody's paying anybody anything - Hashcash is a computational proof-of-work challenge with zero money transferred. If you're talking about a metaphorical "payment" of the smaller players having to do some kind of work - that's a feature, not a bug, because it allows the smaller players to invest effort into convincing Google that they're legitimate, and if coupled with a well-designed spam system that then takes that reputation and associates it with DKIM signatures/IP addresses, then the smaller players burn n cycles and then stop having to do so because they now have reputation with Google, while spammers burn n cycles continually for every message that they send because they keep getting flagged as spam. > As I said in my other comment, either botnet devices can send tens if not hundreds of spam letters, or it's going to be slow and/or expensive for all the legitimate small senders. You really can't have both. Yes, you really can, because you don't understand how anti-spam systems work. A system with Hashcash would start out assigning most IP addresses+hostnames/DKIM signatures with a reputation of 0, and in order to accept a message, would require the sender solve a Hashcash challenge inversely proportional to their reputation. If the message is marked as spam, the reputation takes a hit - if it's not, the reputation increases slightly (along with all of the other factors that an anti-spam system uses). The legitimate servers quickly build up reputation and stop having to solve challenges, while the spammers pay the computational tax until the end of time, making it unprofitable for them to send most spam to most targets. The end.
  - Avamander 4y ago
    > because you're unable to provide counterarguments to specific explanations of how it would fit in I have provided specific cases where the previously proposed use-cases wouldn't work. > they now have reputation with Google, while spammers burn n cycles continually for every message that they send because they keep getting flagged as spam. > The legitimate servers quickly build up reputation and stop having to solve challenges So the spammers send a few warmup mails. It's very naive of you to think spammers can't imitate legit sender behavior. It's also clear you haven't seen or analyzed any significant amount of spam. The end.
    - throw10920 4y ago
      > So the spammers send a few warmup mails. It's very naive of you to think spammers can't imitate legit sender behavior. It's clear to anyone who understands the basics of spam and Hashcash, and can use basic logic, that "So the spammers send a few warmup mails" literally doesn't change the effectiveness of Hashcash. Let me state it again: every new sender has to go through a reputation ramp-up process, but spammers are uniquely penalized by Hashcash because they have to repeatedly because after they start sending spam mail, they lose their reputation and have to start that process again. Normal users do not have to do this - they start a new server, solve a bunch of challenges, and then they don't have to do that again because they don't regularly burn their acquired reputation. You say > It's also clear you haven't seen or analyzed any significant amount of spam. The end. ...but you're unable to use basic logic on publicly-known facts (the vast majority of spammers send large amounts of spam; the vast majority of users send small amounts of email; reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose) to infer the above or generate a logically cohesive counterargument. Every time you can't give an answer, you fallback to an argument to authority.

Avamander 4y ago

> i don't think you understand it, or how it could fit in as a component of a broader spam mitigation system. It's not that I don't understand, I know how it won't. > google wouldn't need to compute hashcash for their outgoing emails, because they have DKIM and a solid reputation. Great, so what's the point? Small players would have to pay Google to deliver mail :D > computational power somehow at odds with that of smaller players. As I said in my other comment, either botnet devices can send tens if not hundreds of spam letters, or it's going to be slow and/or expensive for all the legitimate small senders. You really can't have both.

throw10920 4y ago
> It's not that I don't understand, I know how it won't. You really don't understand it, because you're unable to provide counterarguments to specific explanations of how it would fit in with a larger anti-spam system, and because you say things that are clearly false to someone who does understand it. > Great, so what's the point? Small players would have to pay Google to deliver mail :D ...such as this, which is false. Nobody's paying anybody anything - Hashcash is a computational proof-of-work challenge with zero money transferred. If you're talking about a metaphorical "payment" of the smaller players having to do some kind of work - that's a feature, not a bug, because it allows the smaller players to invest effort into convincing Google that they're legitimate, and if coupled with a well-designed spam system that then takes that reputation and associates it with DKIM signatures/IP addresses, then the smaller players burn n cycles and then stop having to do so because they now have reputation with Google, while spammers burn n cycles continually for every message that they send because they keep getting flagged as spam. > As I said in my other comment, either botnet devices can send tens if not hundreds of spam letters, or it's going to be slow and/or expensive for all the legitimate small senders. You really can't have both. Yes, you really can, because you don't understand how anti-spam systems work. A system with Hashcash would start out assigning most IP addresses+hostnames/DKIM signatures with a reputation of 0, and in order to accept a message, would require the sender solve a Hashcash challenge inversely proportional to their reputation. If the message is marked as spam, the reputation takes a hit - if it's not, the reputation increases slightly (along with all of the other factors that an anti-spam system uses). The legitimate servers quickly build up reputation and stop having to solve challenges, while the spammers pay the computational tax until the end of time, making it unprofitable for them to send most spam to most targets. The end.
- Avamander 4y ago
  > because you're unable to provide counterarguments to specific explanations of how it would fit in I have provided specific cases where the previously proposed use-cases wouldn't work. > they now have reputation with Google, while spammers burn n cycles continually for every message that they send because they keep getting flagged as spam. > The legitimate servers quickly build up reputation and stop having to solve challenges So the spammers send a few warmup mails. It's very naive of you to think spammers can't imitate legit sender behavior. It's also clear you haven't seen or analyzed any significant amount of spam. The end.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > So the spammers send a few warmup mails. It's very naive of you to think spammers can't imitate legit sender behavior. It's clear to anyone who understands the basics of spam and Hashcash, and can use basic logic, that "So the spammers send a few warmup mails" literally doesn't change the effectiveness of Hashcash. Let me state it again: every new sender has to go through a reputation ramp-up process, but spammers are uniquely penalized by Hashcash because they have to repeatedly because after they start sending spam mail, they lose their reputation and have to start that process again. Normal users do not have to do this - they start a new server, solve a bunch of challenges, and then they don't have to do that again because they don't regularly burn their acquired reputation. You say > It's also clear you haven't seen or analyzed any significant amount of spam. The end. ...but you're unable to use basic logic on publicly-known facts (the vast majority of spammers send large amounts of spam; the vast majority of users send small amounts of email; reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose) to infer the above or generate a logically cohesive counterargument. Every time you can't give an answer, you fallback to an argument to authority.