[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> If the situation with junk e-mail becomes much worse than it is now,
> then I think we'll end up with the following scenario:
> 1. A spammer gets my name, Igor Chudov's name, and a bunch of other names
> from our Usenet postings.
> 2. The spammer e-mails each one of us, offering to buy X-rated videos.
> 3. Igor Chudov reads the spam e-mail first and somehow informs my mail-sorting
> 'bot that this e-mail should be junked.
> 4. If my 'bot sees the spammer's mail, it junks it.
> And I'd do the same for him if I saw it first. :-) Naturally the warning about
> junk e-mail needs to be digitally signed. I suppose they could be posted in a
> specially designated Usenet newsgroup. The e-mail-sorting 'bot would check
> this newsgroup for signed junk-mail notices from trusted parties and junk the
> matching e-mails from the incoming queue. I guess it'd have to look at the
> body of the mail and not just the headers, which are easy to vary.
<Dr.D.V.KOTH Standard T.C.May reference deleted>
> > In any event, getting reputation credentials from a decentralized "web of
> > trust" is a much more efficient answer, especially where you can assign
> > your own levels of trust to each signator.
Nice concept, but it isn't that hard to slightly alter each message; now
you've also got to determine which are "the same" messages,and which are
not. Why would the headers be easier to vary than the body? Tack a few
extra one-liner pieces of add copy on the end in pseudo-random order, and
you've got "different" messages.
How do you view this specially designed newsgroup as working? Will you
need to fetch all notices on a regular basis, and use the "warnings" to
sort your mail? Seems like it would take longer to alter your trust level
of third parties than it would take for your "opponent" to crank up
another aol trial disk ...
Looks like a lot of work ahead. :)