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

[Philip Miller <[e-mail]>]

Richard Clayton wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]> writes
> 
>>That leaves one big category:  Web Mail.  The likes of Hotmail and 
>>Yahoo don't charge for sending e-mail from their systems, except 
>>perhaps in terms of banner ads.  They also handle ginormous amounts of 
>>said mail, which could make a proof-of-work switch-on relatively 
>>difficult for them.  However, most of their clients are low-end home 
>>users, who, on average, may have relatively favourable contact 
>>patterns.  For this, we could do with more statistics.
> 
> Goodman & Rounthwaite have an interesting paper on using Captchas to
> limit webmail usage (one conclusion is that you need quite a number of
> them). It was presented at EC'04 yesterday, but the link on Joshua's
> home page is not currently working -- I expect he'll fix it when he gets
> home :(

In addition to the favorable contact patterns, webmail providers have other 
options (that are not particularly restricted to webmail providers):
1. Ask/require their customers to download a small applet that would do the 
work on the client machine (obviously doesn't work when the client is 
something like an underpowered cell phone with WAP access)
2. Tell customers that mail delivery may be delayed unless they pay for 
service while the provider does the proof-of-work as cycles are available
3. Rate-limit customers both by login ID and by client host address or other 
identifying info

If proof-of-work were implemented and demanded on a large (Internet) scale, 
I don't think webmail providers would suffer as much as they would appear to 
on the surface.

I'd also like to note that any of these methods could be used by webmail 
providers to limit spam sent through their systems regardless of any 
receiving-end demand for proof-of-work.

Philip Miller


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg