I think one possible solution would be something like this: 1) drop unless encrypted 2) even if encrypted drop unless either: a) known person b) email is of the form WORK+TIMESTAMP+CONTENT where content is the actual email and work is a proof of work: example: x such that sha256(x+hash(content)+timestamp) starts with n zeroes. Ideally make n such that generating x takes a couple of seconds Il giorno 04/lug/2012 00:46, "|| ΣΖΟ ||" <manostie...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Hmmm, > > Looks like I lifted a stone that was a home for a few critters. > > It gave me some insight in the underlying issues. The biggest (and > still unsolved) issue seems to be the email protocol itself that after > all these years still allows 'strangers' to drop unwanted mail. > > --------------------slightly off - topic area---------------- > If someone email protocol dev is interested I'll have a hint how our > local snail mail solves this: > We have a sticker on the mailbox saying > NO - NO if you don't want the free local newspaper and no spam. > Or: > YES - NO if you still want the newspaper but still no spam > > Would be nice if Google and others added a NO button for ALL unsolicited > mail. > And made an exception for addresses in the address book. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > So in a way I agree with people who say. It is not TOR's problem. > But in my opinion these spammers still do more harm then good. > So ignoring them seems not the answer. > > Would banning them with some kind of blacklist cost more or less > effort then ignoring them and loose time over and over because of > being blocked? (until someone, someday fixes the email protocol...) > > I don't think it will help to ask those sites to whitelist tor nodes > since they blocked them in the first place to get rid of the spam in > an easy way (block the IP altogether). It would be nice if there was > some way to build a site that would give TOR and other anonymous > visitors extra privileges and more information then non anonymous > visitors. :-D > > I'm not saying that being anonymous is the best way, but if > governments keep doing what they are doing then more and more people > will want to be anonymous. The pencil-pushers are still stuck in the > old ways of how things used to work, and are unaware of the future > visions of 'our generation'. So they will keep stressing to what they > feel is 'protecting' their outdated ways of working. And they will not > be able to see the great opportunities of todays technology and > probably will dig themselves in even deeper. > > > > > Another thing that might be an intermediate solution is to give known > (blacklisted) spammers a bunch of know exit nodes and let them spam as > much as they want. Yeah a bit silly i agree, but then they still can > try their hobby and might still be succesful with their cunning > tricks, and thus TOR could use that info to invent mabye some new > stuff based on that. > > As long as normal users can keep surfing in a normal way without being > ranked as being a spammer. > > > > > > I hope this open-brainwave can inspire someone. > _______________________________________________ > tor-talk mailing list > tor-talk@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
