4 ms·

I hope this works out. If enough of the big email vendors (gmail, outlook, yahoo, etc.) get on board the network effect could be enough to push adoption to a ve

by rbobby 12y ago

I hope this works out. If enough of the big email vendors (gmail, outlook, yahoo, etc.) get on board the network effect could be enough to push adoption to a very high percentage. Once that happens my "unencrypted" email folder would be viewed about as often as my junk mail folder. And then... maybe just maybe... spammers will be faced with a serious challenge.

y0ghur7_xxx 12y ago
> And then... maybe just maybe... spammers will be faced with a serious challenge. Why? Couldn't spammers encrypt the mail they send to you just like everybody else?
- phaer 12y ago
  Yes the could, but it would at least cost them more resources which could matter at the scale most spammers work.
  - laggyluke 12y ago
    AFAIK most spammers use botnets, so they don't really care about resources - it's not their resources to begin with.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  Because, I think, they would have to be part of the Key Directory too, listed under "Spammer". This kind if implies a secondary directory market of ratings and rankings of the prime source (ie isASpammer, isWithinThreeHopsOnLinkedIn)
  - vidarh 12y ago
    They'd just keep creating new keys, and use a botnet to exchange seemingly valid e-mails with itself and a trickle of seemingly legit e-mails (buy access to a few small legit mailing lists to make sure their botnet isn't a total island). It's not clear to me that this won't make it possible for spammers to manufacture/buy sufficient "trust" to put themselves in a better situation than they're in today.
    - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
      Darn - I think you are right... Ah well, defeating spam is only a nice to have from this
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  It'd probably become like SPF/DKIM - somewhat spammy companies who still have a genuine mailing list and will still opt you out if you ask (or even click 'Spam' in gmail etc via FBLs) will go to the effort to implement it, but random viagra spam being pumped out by botnets likely won't.

by rbobby 12y ago

y0ghur7_xxx 12y ago

> And then... maybe just maybe... spammers will be faced with a serious challenge. Why? Couldn't spammers encrypt the mail they send to you just like everybody else?

phaer 12y ago
Yes the could, but it would at least cost them more resources which could matter at the scale most spammers work.
- laggyluke 12y ago
  AFAIK most spammers use botnets, so they don't really care about resources - it's not their resources to begin with.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Because, I think, they would have to be part of the Key Directory too, listed under "Spammer". This kind if implies a secondary directory market of ratings and rankings of the prime source (ie isASpammer, isWithinThreeHopsOnLinkedIn)
- vidarh 12y ago
  They'd just keep creating new keys, and use a botnet to exchange seemingly valid e-mails with itself and a trickle of seemingly legit e-mails (buy access to a few small legit mailing lists to make sure their botnet isn't a total island). It's not clear to me that this won't make it possible for spammers to manufacture/buy sufficient "trust" to put themselves in a better situation than they're in today.
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    Darn - I think you are right... Ah well, defeating spam is only a nice to have from this
blueskin_ 12y ago
It'd probably become like SPF/DKIM - somewhat spammy companies who still have a genuine mailing list and will still opt you out if you ask (or even click 'Spam' in gmail etc via FBLs) will go to the effort to implement it, but random viagra spam being pumped out by botnets likely won't.