IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> Tue, 18 May 2004 02:10 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21740 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:10:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPu1H-0002bl-1r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:07:51 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I27prj010012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:07:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtz9-0001ly-VK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:05:39 -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 WAA21565 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:05:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtz6-00070f-VV for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:05:37 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPty4-0006eN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:04:33 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtwx-00068z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:03:23 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtqo-0008F1-5x; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:57:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtpT-0007hU-Vh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:39 -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 VAA21170 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtpR-0003PJ-1a for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:37 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtoM-00031f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:54:30 -0400
Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtnN-0002YX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:53:29 -0400
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4A59840D for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4I1rP909144; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200405180153.i4I1rP909144@panix5.panix.com>
From: Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.com> (message from Barry Shein on Mon, 17 May 2004 21:27:32 -0400)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis
References: <LV1hjGBSmTqAFAry@highwayman.com> <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.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: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:53:25 -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

Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:

> I'm just idly curious (like you I have zero confidence in
> proof-of-work schemes) but why wouldn't they all be equivalent to
> "don't send me your next command for (at least) N seconds or I'll
> drop the connection"? That'd be independent of CPU speed wouldn't
> it!

Spamware could parallel connections to umpteen million recipients and
send at full speed if all it had to do was wait.

> Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N
> seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection
> (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.)

That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally.  If it
becomes more common, that spamware will become less common.

Seth

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email