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

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Tue, 18 May 2004 18:12 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02840 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ92l-0003kl-Un for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:10:24 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4IIANET014423 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:10:23 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ8t4-0001Q2-N8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:00:22 -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 OAA01763 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ8t2-0003SG-E7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:00:20 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8s1-0003P4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:59:18 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8rW-0003Lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:58:46 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ8k5-00004s-4K; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:51:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ8dK-00074o-6Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:44:06 -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 NAA00052 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:44:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ8dI-00023g-0U for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:44:04 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8cI-000217-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:43:03 -0400
Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=V08SQYM1bwBTVONGibgJCze4aIPAKd5QGubyLmnAv3V) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8ba-0001y8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:42:18 -0400
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28469; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:42:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Message-Id: <200405181742.NAA28469@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis
In-Reply-To: <20040518162206.5558D16FCA@mail.nitros9.org>
References: <20040518162206.5558D16FCA@mail.nitros9.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:34:56 -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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>>>> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally.
>>> Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for
>>> good reason.
>> Problem?  What problem?  I am quite happy to reject mail from people
>> who think they deserve to be exempted from the RFCs that apply to
>> everyone else
> Is this another example of the SMTP spec having requirements, but
> supplying no provisions for satisfying, or enforcing, those
> requirements?

Right.  Like most protocols, the enforcement mechanism consists of
interoperation failures.  However, unlike most protocols, historical
implementations of SMTP have tolerated many and egregious protocol
violations, so there is a chicken-and-egg problem with rolling in
protocol conformance checks.

Illegal pipelining is just one of the forms of protocol violation that
has historically been tolerated, and has current prominence because
it's now being abused by ratware.  This has produced a positive side to
adopting pipelining conformance checks, counterbalancing the negative
side that has kept such checks out until now.  We're now in the
uncomfortable unsettled transition period from widely unchecked and
nonconforming to widely checked and conforming.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

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