Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis

Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> Wed, 19 May 2004 20:01 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09932 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:01:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWtT-00021C-Ky for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:38:24 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JJcNK5007741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:38:23 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWV2-0007qr-Tq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:13:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03580 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQWV1-0004QQ-JL for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:13:07 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWTs-00049I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:11:56 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWSX-0003ri-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:10:33 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQVp6-0006tJ-AA; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:29:48 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQULK-0002GM-4I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:58 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23209 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQULI-0004mr-8w for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:56 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQUKZ-0004ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:12 -0400
Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQUJU-0004ct-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:04 -0400
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD8A48D8E for <asrg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4JGr3H11814; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200405191653.i4JGr3H11814@panix5.panix.com>
From: Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <j8075egWYyqAFA8T@highwayman.com> (message from Richard Clayton on Wed, 19 May 2004 10:17:10 +0100)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis
References: <LV1hjGBSmTqAFAry@highwayman.com> <CB27C1AA-A8AB-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <mevaB4e60fqAFAu2@highwayman.com> <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <j8075egWYyqAFA8T@highwayman.com>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:03 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60

Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote:

> 60 seconds implies that you limit people to 1440 emails per day. If
> you look again at the paper you will see that at this level the
> spammers who use zombies would be restricted to only about 5% of
> current activity (ie the solution would perceptually be no better
> than filtering)

But it would be independent of filtering, so together they'd eliminate
99.75% of spam (assuming your statement of 95% effectiveness each).

> or alternatively (if you think spammers will purchase kit to do the
> proof- of-work sums "legitimately") you are forcing the price of
> spam up to around 0.1 cents/email -- which is not sufficient to
> remove a lot of topics from our mailboxes.

That's a several order of magnitude increase in the price of spam so
yes, I do think it would remove a lot of spam from my mailbox.

Seth

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg