Re: Opportunistic signatures - a proposed design

Atom 'Smasher' wrote:

> 
> i understand that implementing hashcash could be a big and costly step 
> in some settings... to those organizations i can only (in the most 
> respectful way) give a one finger salute...

it's clear we  must agree to disagree.  In my world, there is no 
opportunity to modify desktops.  There is opportunity to use an 
interception box to implement stamped mail enterprisewide.  There are 
insufficient resources to stamp every single piece of e-mail every 
single time.  E-mail from known recipients must be allowed through 
without subjecting them to content filters every time.

like it or not, political considerations come first, human factors come 
second, technical considerations come pretty close to dead last.  100 
percent stamping is a political nonstarter with serious technical 
problems.  This means, that any viable stamping system will consist of 
something approximating stamping, a content filter and a forgery 
friendly white list.

Yes, the white list has the same risks as signing only more so because 
you can send messages faster with a plain white list.  signatures could 
protect us from simple forgery from anywhere.  signatures would improve 
the ability is legal action against spammers (i.e. provable theft of 
data), improve the ability to detect zombie sources and make the machine 
owner accountable.

but this is not to be anytime soon.

so, let's just agree to disagree.

---eric