Comments on: Spam in Gmail http://www.mcgees.org/2007/09/23/spam-in-gmail/ Website of Joshua McGee Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:30:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Amal http://www.mcgees.org/2007/09/23/spam-in-gmail/#comment-31331 Amal Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:50:20 +0000 http://www.mcgees.org/2007/09/23/spam-in-gmail/#comment-31331 Ah, that sounds about right. I would probably support that idea as long as it was executed well. Ah, that sounds about right. I would probably support that idea as long as it was executed well.

]]> By: Joshua <i>(Site Owner)</i> http://www.mcgees.org/2007/09/23/spam-in-gmail/#comment-30727 Joshua (Site Owner) Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:26:07 +0000 http://www.mcgees.org/2007/09/23/spam-in-gmail/#comment-30727 <p> Something dubbed "<a href="http://hashcash.org/faq/" rel="nofollow">HashCash</a>" has also been devised. It makes your computer spend computing cycles to send every email. It is so-named because the computer hashes (generates a profiling number) based on the recipient's email address, the date, a public key for the recipient (maybe), and random sequences of letters and numbers until the string they are hashing "collides" with a given pattern, say, the first five digits being zero. The cost is then not monetary, but rather based on calculation. </p> Something dubbed “HashCash” has also been devised.  It makes your computer spend computing cycles to send every email.  It is so-named because the computer hashes (generates a profiling number) based on the recipient’s email address, the date, a public key for the recipient (maybe), and random sequences of letters and numbers until the string they are hashing “collides” with a given pattern, say, the first five digits being zero.  The cost is then not monetary, but rather based on calculation.

]]> By: Amal http://www.mcgees.org/2007/09/23/spam-in-gmail/#comment-30681 Amal Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:08:06 +0000 http://www.mcgees.org/2007/09/23/spam-in-gmail/#comment-30681 I think another solution I've heard of is incorporating a very small time delay per recipient - nothing that we would notice when sending something to a few friends at a time, but would certainly choke up the system of someone sending mass emails. I'm not sure what I would prefer. I suppose I would prefer a method that didn't require the exchange of money in any form and therefore didn't mean one more database with my personal information in it. And I agree with you - spammers are scum. Just downright rotten. I think another solution I’ve heard of is incorporating a very small time delay per recipient - nothing that we would notice when sending something to a few friends at a time, but would certainly choke up the system of someone sending mass emails. I’m not sure what I would prefer.

I suppose I would prefer a method that didn’t require the exchange of money in any form and therefore didn’t mean one more database with my personal information in it.

And I agree with you - spammers are scum. Just downright rotten.

]]>