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

[Seth Breidbart <sethb at panix.com>]

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