[Asrg] attention bonds, was Email Postage

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 09:47:07PM -0600, mathew wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 13:20, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
> 
> > It's irrelevant because it doesn't matter which of the two scenarios
> > above prevails; all of these schemes are pre-failed because they
> > all presume that something is true which is emphatically false: network
> > endpoints are secure.  All of these proposals thus amount to attempts
> > to layer a trust mechanism on top of an already-known badly-broken base.
> 
> 
> I think you're on the wrong mailing list. You should be on the "how do we
> un-pwn a few million Windows PCs" list, if you think that that's an
> essential prerequisite to doing anything technical about spam.

First, it's not a few million, it's a few hundred million.

Second, it's not a prerequisite to doing anything technical about spam.
It's a prerequisite to doing anything technical about spam *that requires
treating those systems as trustworthy*.

---Rsk