[hashcash] Re: considering hashcash
- From: Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:51:49 -0400
>>>>> "Atom" == Atom 'Smasher' <atom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
Jonathan> Whitelists suck because it's ridiculously easy to forge the
Jonathan> information they're presently based on. There are ways of
Jonathan> making signatures that are relatively hard to forge, and a
Jonathan> whitelist based on these would be much more useful.
Well the point of things such as SPF is to make things harder to
forge... But in general, I'm in favour of cryptographic verification
as well.
Atom> i don't get it... if the recipient is verifying a collision,
Atom> signature, or some other unique token, that's different than a
Atom> whitelist...
I think what Jonathan means is that messages get signed and you
whitelist the keys. Since you can't forge signatures without cracking
the keys, it's a lot more robust. (You can't just accept any mail with
a valid signature, since spammers can generate their own keys.)
I think that's what camram tries to do.
--
Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Other related posts:
