Re: [Asrg] Too Big to Block?

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Thu, 09 July 2009 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D621928C206 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.336
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HmdnXoej7UA for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B81528C1F4 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 08E4533CA9; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:36:28 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20090709173627.GP15652@verdi>
References: <4A426B9D.7090901@mines-paristech.fr> <4A43618A.6000205@tana.it> <4A4F7DD0.4040404@billmail.scconsult.com> <4A51D35E.70306@tana.it> <4A52C36D.6040207@billmail.scconsult.com> <20090708141747.GA2822@gsp.org> <20090708155704.GN15652@verdi> <20090709120305.GC26436@gsp.org> <20090709152717.GO15652@verdi> <200907091604.MAA25275@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200907091604.MAA25275@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Too Big to Block?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:36:07 -0000

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG> wrote:
> 
>>> Epostage is dead-on-arrival for a number of reasons, including "a
>>> hundred million zombies".
> 
>> A hundred million zombies aren't enough to guess strong password
>> encryption
> 
> The point is not the zombies attacking the crypto.  The point is
> zombies (ab)using their machines' legitimate owners' epostage.

   This is a problem why?

>> Making ePostage work is clearly possible in an environment of [...]
> 
> Quite possibly.  Are such environments common enough to matter?

   I can imagine them... Why couldn't they be common?

> I don't think anyone's claiming epostage doesn't have even a niche
> place.  But so far it doesn't seem to have more than that.  People keep
> claiming it does, but the proof (ie, the example) is, so far, lacking.

   Hmm... sounds like a good "research" project...

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>