Subject: [Asrg] Encryption technologies and SPAM

From: Richard Willey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:51:58 -0700

Hi all

I have a silly question that didn't seem to be addressed in the FAQ.
I'm trying to understand dependancies between opportunistic encryption of 
email and efforts to control SPAM.

From what I can tell, there are some very significant cross effects 
between the two technologies:

First: If email is encrypted, this will sigificantly limit the locations 
at which SPAM control technologies can be deployed.

Second: Encryption is computationally expensive.  Potentially, the act of 
forcing end nodes to encrypt an email prior to sending it could increase 
the cost of transmission enough to render many forms of SPAM economically 
unviable.  [On a related topic, is their a well accepted boundary 
condition regarding the total cost to transmit an email message in order 
that SPAM is economically viable?]

Third, the same key distribution technologies that enable encrypted email 
will also be necessary for any kind of digital signature system.

From my (admittedly novice) perspective, it would appear that SPAM control 
and encryption need to be considered in parallel.
I haven't seen much dicussion of this topic on the mailing list.

Richard Willey

Strategic Marketing
Symantec Corporation
There are 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Office:
(408) 517-7740
Interoffice: 
6 [408] 7740
Mobile:
(408) 410-7112
Email:
[email-masked]
www.symantec.com

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Richard Willey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:38:39 -0700

>I don't see why we need to tie encryption and spam control together. I
>don't even see the first claim you make - why does encryption limit
>spam? Are you proposing we send only encrypted email?
>
>Chuck Wegrzyn

There have been a number of proposals on this list that suggest that the 
best way to limit SPAM is raise the cost of transmitting an email.  In 
some cases these proposals are based on a micropayment scheme.  Other 
systems such as HashCash force the sender to "send" CPU cycles.  I am 
simply suggesting that since the act of encryption costs CPU cycles, an 
encryption system might fulfill many of the same design principles as a 
system like Hashcash, while, at the same time providing a privacy service.

>>On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 14:51, Richard Willey wrote:
>> Hi all
>> 

Richard Willey

Strategic Marketing
Symantec Corporation