[15462] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: The future of security
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Wed May 26 15:58:08 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: "Anton Stiglic" <astiglic@okiok.com>
Cc: "Ian Grigg" <iang@systemics.com>,
"Graeme Burnett" <rgb@enhyper.com>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 May 2004 09:30:46 EDT."
<010501c44325$a6d62700$4900a8c0@okiok.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:59:16 -0400
In message <010501c44325$a6d62700$4900a8c0@okiok.com>, "Anton Stiglic" writes:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
>
>> >
>> >j. a cryptographic solution for spam and
>> >viruses won't be found.
>>
>> This ties into the same thing: spam is *unwanted* email, but it's not
>> *unauthorized*. Crypto can help with the latter, but only if you can
>> define who is in the authorized set of senders. That's not feasible
>> for most people.
>
>
>Something like hashcash / client puzzles / Penny Black define a set
>of authorized email (emails that come with a proof-of-work), and then
>provide a cryptographic solution. This is not a full-proof solution (as
>described in the paper Proof-of-Work Proves Not to Work),
>but a good partial solution that is probably best used in combination
>with other techniques such as white-lists, Bayesian spam filters , etc...
>
>I think cryptography techniques can provide a partial solution to spam.
>
The spammers are playing with other people's money, cycles, etc. They
don't care.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
