IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> Tue, 18 May 2004 01:54 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21109 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:54:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtmi-0007AH-Dx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:52:48 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I1qm3p027542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:52:48 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtlq-0006sd-7y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:51:54 -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 VAA20948 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtln-0001sw-CX for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:51:51 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtkf-0001Vu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:50:42 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtjm-00018o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:49:46 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPteD-0004RN-GG; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:44:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtXx-0002n6-Sw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:37:34 -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 VAA20156 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtXv-0004VJ-3Q for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:37:31 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtWw-00046U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:36:31 -0400
Received: from pcls3.std.com ([192.74.137.143] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtVw-0003P9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:35:28 -0400
Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4I1ZCpD030079; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:35:12 -0400
Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4I1RX8l005417; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.com>
To: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com>
Cc: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis
In-Reply-To: <LV1hjGBSmTqAFAry@highwayman.com>
References: <LV1hjGBSmTqAFAry@highwayman.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 21:27:32 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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!

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's fairly easy to implement and how can a conformant MTA
distinguish a sneaky delay from a slow network? Most MTAs are
configured to wait a minute or two for the initial HELO anyhow.

Unless someone has a good answer this is why I've always thought these
proof-of-work/hashcash schemes were the product of dopes.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email