cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-31 - Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: Igor Chudov <ichudov@algebra.com>
Message Hash: 4c87d6d22cd6cd51e35bccff8a9d03df22ccaea2e822d9097d8c9979e2cfbadf
Message ID: <32C95389.287B@gte.net>
Reply To: <199612310833.CAA03527@manifold.algebra.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-31 17:56:42 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:56:42 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:56:42 -0800 (PST)
To: Igor Chudov <ichudov@algebra.com>
Subject: Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
In-Reply-To: <199612310833.CAA03527@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <32C95389.287B@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Bill Frantz wrote:
> > (3) In order to limit the number of posting tokens, the list server will
> > only issue a few per day.  The lucky few who get them, everyone who asks
> > under normal circumstances, may be determined by an algorithm designed to
> > limit token collection by future attackers.  (This area is where this
> > proposal needs work!)[snip]
> Send a number of unique tokens to each subscriber each day.  Enforce a
> rule that only posts with valid current tokens may be accepted. The
> number of tokens should initially be very small (say, one per day) and
> then should be quickly increased to a sufficient number, like 10 or 20,
> as the subscriber shows a record of using tokens properly (as defined by
> acceptable content rules).[snip]

Why not have any list deal with a heirarchy of security, so that:

n-number of posters will use the highest level of security
m-number will use a lower level of security
k-number will send plain text

Flags can be assigned for various purposes:

What level of encoding I send my messages with
What level I can receive
Restrictions on delivery of my messages according to a table maintained
  by the list managers

Thread