From: John Deters <jad@dsddhc.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 07:59:55 +0800
To: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
Subject: Re: Spamming
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960826182604.008973e0@labg30>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:38 PM 8/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
>
>What do cypherpunks think about the following practice or law (I realize
>that it may be impossible to implement): each email message should carry
>a little digicash check for, say, 20 cents. Mail reading programs should
>reject (send back unread) all messages not carrying these digital
>checks, unless the senders are in the "friends list". The MUAs should
>ask users whether they want to "cash" the digital check or not.

I'm all in favor of it.  The POP3 client I write to cash those little
digital droplets and tell the spammers that I *love* to get their ads, read
each one for 45 seconds/page, scroll thru them lovingly, and reply to the
specified address for much more information, has the potential to pay for my
master's degree.

Call it the SpamMonster(tm).  ("Spam is for money, that's good enough for me")

Therefore, in order to actually make their system work, they'd need to send
out their own special mail readers.  And I'd disassemble one and
SpamMonster(tm) would continue to eat their spam, ad infinitum (pun not
intended, but it works really, really well, n'est pa?)

I do not believe it is possible to have a secure executable that exists on
an uncontrolled user's machine.  "Tamperproof" encryption chips still
require communications in and out from the user's program.  A determined
attacker could continue to use the pieces of their code that talk to the
encryption chip.

Never underestimate the allure of "free money" when you're planning to give
it away.

>If they do cash the check, the digital bank notifies the senders, so
>that they can adjust their behavior and would not send letters to such
>individuals.
>
>The checks should expire very soon to prevent people cashing them later
>when they are desperate for money. There can also be public notice
>systems that store addresses of individuals who abuse the system (for
>example, those who post questions to newsgroups and collect the digital
>checks), so that people would not reply to such users in the future.

Hmm.  Reading ONE message from them puts me on a "Spammer's blacklist"?
Without the e-cash incentive, sign me up!

>Is there a potential for abuse in this system?

Depends on your point of view  :-)  I certainly think it has potential!

John
--
J. Deters  "Captain's log, stardate 25970-point-5.  I am nailed to the hull."
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| NET:   jad@dsddhc.com (work)    jad@pclink.com (home) |
| PSTN:  1 612 375 3116 (work)    1 612 894 8507 (home) |
| ICBM:  44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work)   |
| PGP Key ID:  768 / 15FFA875                           |
+-------------------------------------------------------+