From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 3acd80592f77bcd0cd8ce38641242f81faef89bd4f91b243f0d95069cb10eedd
Message ID: <3.0.5.32.19980220001517.008a6300@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Reply To: <2358.199802181427@cronus>
UTC Datetime: 1998-02-20 08:20:49 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:20:49 +0800
From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:20:49 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Dealing with Spam, Part 2
In-Reply-To: <2358.199802181427@cronus>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980220001517.008a6300@popd.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 02:27 PM 2/18/98 +0000, T.G.Griffiths@exeter.ac.uk wrote:
>Mark@unicorn.com makes a good point about MailGuard.
>If A and B both run MailGuard, and neither is on the
>other's allowed list, do you get an infinite bounce
>when A mails B or does the prog. get around it? I can
>think of a couple of ways, but what does MailGuard do?
The classic implementations of systems like that do
one of three things
0) Don't think, leading to infinite mailbounces
(often caught in testing, since it's very bad.)
1) Prevent loops, but there's no way to communicate
2) Prevent loops, and recognize mail from other MailThingies,
which makes it easy for Spammers to forge.
If you get fancy, you can probably work something like
Receive message
Send and record Alice-cookie ->
<-- Reply with Alice-cookie and new Bob-cookie
verify Alice-cookie and accept message
Reply to Bob-cookie
--> Verify Bob-cookie for future use
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Return to February 1998
Return to “Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>”
Unknown thread root