Why kernel development still uses email

Re:Why kernel development still uses email by kijin on Sunday October 02, 2016 @07:54AM (#12621958)

Your poll-and-fetch suggestion sounds really interesting. Even if is not combined with a widely used reputation system, it would greatly increase the cost for spammers by requiring them to stay online indefinitely. It's basically graylisting on steroids, but without the annoying delay that graylisting imposes on every sender.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why kernel development still uses email by dredmorbius on Sunday October 02, 2016 @09:19PM (#12625112)

Bingo.

Mind that that cost can be met by some spammers, as it's effectively how a number of present online systems work. But in general, spammers tend to be taken down, and you remove the fire, cram, and forget mechanism of mail blasters, or the sparse, wide botnet model, where a given node emits only a relatively small number of messages.

Adding reputation to the mix strikes me as the secret sauce though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why kernel development still uses email by rakoo on Sunday October 02, 2016 @10:23AM (#12622446)

It's interesting to note that this idea isn't completely new, and raises some questions as noted by djb: https://cr.yp.to/im2000.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why kernel development still uses email by dredmorbius on Sunday October 02, 2016 @11:15PM (#12625374)

And, yes, I've seen the IM2000 proposal before, it's undoubtedly influenced my thinking, though I didn't have it in mind writing above.

I'd really like to see a further exploration of the concept. djb's essay is still only a very rough outline.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why kernel development still uses email by dredmorbius on Sunday October 02, 2016 @09:20PM (#12625116)

Thanks for that. Yes, djb has thought through a lot of matters of trust and ought be considered. I'll take a look at that, I think I've read it before.

[ Parent | on HN ]