3 ms·
> As far as I can tell, Gmail is 100% accurate. My experience is I've had a few false negatives and false positives. Gmail is still very good though, and any r
by cabalamat 13y ago
> As far as I can tell, Gmail is 100% accurate.
My experience is I've had a few false negatives and false positives. Gmail is still very good though, and any replacement, if it is to be widely used, needs to solve the spam problem.
If each message had to be separately encrypted for each receiver, would this add much to a spammer's costs? I'm guessing it would, but not by enough to make spam uneconomic. A better solution might be to require that the first email someone sends someone else, unless they've been OK'd by a third party, contains bitcoins to the value of $0.01.
- comex 13y agoFun fact: Bitcoin's proof-of-work algorithm is based on Hashcash, which was an anti-spam measure along those lines: a message contains a partial hash brute-force that takes the sender about a second of CPU time to compute (and depends on the recipient). But it didn't take off, and is problematic when spammers have vast amounts of CPU resources in the form of botnets.