[15968] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: RPOW - Reusable Proofs of Work
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Crawford)
Sat Aug 21 15:47:15 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:13:14 -0500
From: Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
In-reply-to: <20040820210924.82B4057E2B@finney.org>
To: hal@finney.org ("Hal Finney")
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
On Aug 20, 2004, at 16:09, Hal Finney wrote:
>> If you think of POW as a possible SPAM mitigation, how does the first
>> receiving MTA assure the next MTA in line that a message was "paid
>> for?" Certainly the mail relay doesn't want to do new work, but the
>> second MTA doesn't know that the first isn't a spambot.
>
> The first MTA would exchange the received RPOW for a new one of equal
> value, and pass it along with the message to the next MTA in line.
Right, I'm saying that's a possible use for RPOW, other than one that's
equivalent to digital cash. Sorry if my intent wasn't clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
