From: Antonomasia <ant@notatla.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 22:30:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com
Subject: Re: hashcash spam prevention & firewalls
Message-ID: <199712131225.MAA02138@notatla.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>:

> I am looking at writing some hashcash
> (http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/hashcash/) based spam prevention
> software.

> So what we want is a filter to bounce messages without the required
> hashcash postage, we ideally want this to happen at the ISP or
> organisational SMTP server end, rather than at the recipients end,
> because a) it is simpler for 1 service provider to install software
> than 100,000 neophytes,

Hashcash in this context suffers from the 'fax effect' - the
catch 22 of "We won't install what isn't widely used".


>                         and b) it reduces bandwidth consumption on
> dial up users pay per second lines as the spam is killed before they
> see it.

I have not (yet) persuaded demon to allow user-defined procmail rules
on the ISP end of the phone lines.  Anybody know an ISP who does this ?
I'll be with them in days if they match the other services I want.
I can't imagine ISPs installing something at all exotic if they refuse
to use procmail.

> Secondly the proxy approach prevents some of the SMTP server functions
> from operating properly because the process on the other end of the
> socket is our hashcash proxy on localhost rather than the remote mail
> hub

No loss.

> If the postage is valid, replay the headers to the real SMTP server
> (with IP masquerading so that the IP address appears to be coming from
> the originator, so that the SMTP server will not get upset about
> reverse DNS look up mismatches etc).  Then act as a dumb proxy for the
> rest of the connection passing data through to the normal hashcash
> server.

The above paragraph looks like a strange (and IMHO wrong) way to
mix firewall technologies.  If you are passing mail through a proxy
you won't want to either IP masq or lookup DNS records internally.

> There are a few techniques to reduce the overhead of preventing spam
> with hashcash.  One is to require valid hashcash only on the first
> message to a given address.  (Spammers being hit and run types, and
> even having to generate hashcash for each spamee once would be
> expensive for a spam list of 10 million unwilling spam recipients).
> Better, is to require valid hashcash on all mail, _until_ the
> recipient replies to a mail.  This is good because people rarely reply
> to spammers.

This means a huge database of who has replied to whom.  Must the
reply have headers indicating In-Reply-To a recognisable message ?


--
##############################################################
# Antonomasia   ant@notatla.demon.co.uk                      #
# See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/                        #
##############################################################