[hashcash] Re: new format tweak coming...

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:07:48AM -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> which means the only thing you really need to quote is the quote 
> character itself.  I was thinking that it might be possible to instead 
> use something like two types of quotes so that you could have quoted 
> strings within using the "other" form but then you could have both 
> quotes within a quoted strings if you were truly unlucky.

Yes I had come to think the same thing ... re "'" or '"' as the two
choices, and this is the "perl" thing, plus "\"'" and '"'\'

Cool.  So the usual case should be nice and clean for most
applications and there are no restrictions.  I was also thinking the
quotes should be optional.  So you only need to quote if you're trying
to protect =.

> so I think it's best to go simple as well as readable which means
> the "\"type of string\"" method of producing a quoted string within
> a quoted string is probably a good technique.

Yes I agree.  That also implies btw \\ is needed if you need.

> > [...] multiple recipients
> > to="foo@xxxxxxx","abc@xxxxxxx", subject="hello world".
> 
> assuming I'm not misunderstanding you, I would argue against the 
> multiple recipients in one stamp technique because it makes things 
> easier for spammers.  They could just list the whole bunch of names, 
> generate one 23 bit stamp and mail is delivered very inexpensively which 
> is not what we want.

Unstated assumption if one were to do this, the stamp requirement
would be multiplied by the number of recipients.

Actually I think it is probably not a good idea to do this -- there
may be different negotiations, exemptions, whitelist tokens,
signatures etc being sent between different recipients and the sender,
so to keep things separate is probably a good idea.  And anyway will
minimally need separate token for Bcc.  Also if you are on the
recipient list multiple times (under different or the same identity)
it would complicate the double spend database semantics (you would
have to accept the token twice as you were listed twice in it's
recipient list, so you would have to write down the identity you
accepted it as also and consult this set when you verified).  This
last point alone makes it worth avoiding if you ask me.

Adam

Other related posts: