[82870] in Cypherpunks
Re: e$: $MTP? (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Unprivileged user)
Mon Jul 7 16:42:16 1997
From: Unprivileged user <nobody@www.video-collage.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 16:01:05 -0400
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970705114146.2618B-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: Unprivileged user <nobody@www.video-collage.com>
On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, Paul Bradley wrote:
> > > Frankly, I see no other solution to this problem in the long run except for
> > > postage, which means it's probably time to start figuring out, in earnest,
> > > how to make it all work. Whoever becomes the lowest cost producer of this
> > > kind of software stands to make a whole *bunch* of money.
> >
> > We still need to work out how to fit mailing lists fit into this without
> > eliminating them entirely. Chargebacks to the subscribers? If this list
> > will work in a proposed plan, I think all the others probably would as
> > well.. :-)
>
> I personally see hashcash as the ideal way to solve this problem, and in
> Adam Back`s analysis of the hashcash solution he mentions mailing lists
> and suggest that filtering software have an explicit "filter in" command,
> so you could eliminate any mail coming from the list from needing to have
> cash attached. Of course the spammers could then just spam mailing lists,
> but that it a much smaller problem than the current random UCE problem.
If all mail relays were either limited to sending to or from their
domains, and had a settable quota on Bcc: it would go a long way. Since
mailers are high in Bcc, they could get a large quota.
I don't think spammers now send 500 discrete messages, especially long
ones, merely Bcc: 500 people.
--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
