cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1997-08-11 - Re: some hashcash advocacy (was Re: anti-spam law implies laws against remailers?)

Header Data

From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Message Hash: 1d6c7af8e19b0a6fe2e754db1c6da990d9373e9fdf0b95f76911309fc445e483
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970809220106.458C-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Reply To: <199708082145.WAA01973@server.test.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-11 15:38:40 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:38:40 +0800

Raw message

From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:38:40 +0800
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: some hashcash advocacy (was Re: anti-spam law implies laws against remailers?)
In-Reply-To: <199708082145.WAA01973@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970809220106.458C-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> As an interim upgrade path ISPs adopting it could be to bounce
> messages with out payments, and include a nonce, and instructions to
> resend including the nonce.  Set up the filter so that the second post
> gets through.  Spammers often don't have forged reply addresses for
> obvious reasons.  

I don`t think we even want to get into the issue of ISPs being involved 
in hashcash or any other form of postage, a better system is a simple 
user<->user model where the users mail reader can be configured to filter 
email without hashcash, procmail scripts to do this wouldn`t be hard 
either I imagine (disclaimer: I`m no procmail expert, and this may be 
entirely wrong).

Any form of ISP censorship, bouncing or filtering is a bad move.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Thread