----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Cunningham" <billc44@citynet.net> To: "Lloyd Wood" <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>; "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <saq66@umkc.edu> Cc: "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>; <dwork@almaden.ibm.com>; <ietf@ietf.org>; <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 8:09 PM Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lloyd Wood" <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> > To: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <saq66@umkc.edu> > Cc: "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > <pbaker@verisign.com>; <dwork@almaden.ibm.com>; <ietf@ietf.org>; > <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org> > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 5:29 PM > Subject: RE: namedroppers, continued > > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) wrote: > > > > > " If I don't know you, and you want your e-mail to appear in my > > > inbox, then you must attach to your message an easily verified > > > "proof of computational effort", just for me and just for this > > > message. > > > > > > If the proof of effort requires, say, 10 seconds to compute, then > > > the economics of sending spam are radically altered, as a single > > > machine can send only 8,000 messages per day. > > > > tracking moore's law could be a problem. > > > > > The recent proliferation of spam has lead to a renewed interest in > > > these ideas. This work is about both the choice of functions that > > > can be used to yield easily verifiable proofs of computational > > > effort, and architectures for implementing the proof of effort > > > approach. Filtering and/or forcing senders to pay in other > > > currencies, such as human attention and money, will be covered as > > > time permits" > > > > "Sender pays" is good. The penny black stamp effectively introduced a > > flat-rate tax on sending letters, rather than a variable-rate tax on > > receiving them, effectively turning mail into a common good available > > to all society. > > Lloyd, in the US we pay .37 to mail a first-class letter. I don't know how > many pence you pay in the UK but we still have "spam" bulk rate unwanted > solicitations. Forcing the sender to pay doesn't solve a spam problem. I > don't see how in could. It would force everyone to have to pay a price. > > > > The government also undercut private messaging operators and > > effectively put them out of business, but could use money earned > > towards other services for society (having simplified and saved on its > > operational costs along the way). > > > > So, computing as a social good - you want to send an email to someone > > you're unknown to, you've got to provide proof that you're > > participating in SETI@home, searching for big primes, in a distributed > > crypto challenge, working on processing public GIS information, > > autocomparing versions of typed ascii out-of-copyright texts (or raw > > CD rips?) for accuracy, processing gene data or archived NASA tapes or > > otherwise doing good things -- guess this would make each computing > > charity (give us your spare cycles) the ticket server or PKI manager, > > although you might want to try distributing that too. > > > > > for more details > > > http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack > > > > I don't see any discussion there of the computation as a social good, > > or computational functions as utility functions. Microsoft, eh? > > > > http://www.glassinesurfer.com/f/gsrowlandhill.shtml > > -- and here's the obligatory mention of Jeremy Bentham. > > > > L. > > > > <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk> > > > > > >