* zcat <zcat(a)wired.net.nz> [2004-05-31 00:21]:
It unfairly penalises people with slow computers who might want to run a mailing list (me!)
No. Read harder.
while barely slowing any spammer who happens to control a vast network of virus-infected home computers (most of them).
Point conceded, as I've written in my mail to Daniel.
And, like most spam 'solutions' it requires a complete reimplimentation of the entire mailsystem.
You must have read a different site than I did.
If you think that 'raising the cost of mail' is the right approach, tiergrube(sp?) would be a much fairer (and more transparent) way of doing it.
"Teergrube". That does have the huge advantage that already it works with any RFC compliant client today and so can help before it has achieved deep penetration. But you lost me there. You don't like hashcash because you run a mailinglist hub, but you like teergrubing? Can you explain how that goes together? Hashcash and teergrube are basically identical concepts, besides the fact they raise the cost in terms of CPU vs time, respectively. As a mailinglist hub, encountering a teergrubing SMTP server will inevitably be painful at the time you send out those mails, whereas with hashcash, you can choose not to verify hashes at the time you receive them, and leave that up to the recipients or intervening MTAs. But teergrubing is as useless in the face of bot networks as hashcash. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."