I continue to suggest we should use a simple majority rules to determine
the correctness. Justin did say:
>>But, also remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is
right is not always popular.
In this case, "right" can be subjective, and so I'd suggest that popular ==
right.
How would this fit into the DNS-based system (which is appearing to be the
most technically sound and efficient distributed solution thus far)?
At 08:45 AM 3/10/99 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
>>
>> Rather than try to legislate compliance (how many spammers are going to
>> abide by our terms?), simply don't collect e-mail addresses at all. If
>> we want to notify someone of an improperly formatted entry, build an
>> error response into the protocol and give the user notification that way.
>> If we have a need for tracking entries, make it voluntary and allow the
>> user to choose a handle and password via a web form (or build that
>> into the protocol as well).
>
>Old solved privacy problem. Take a hash of the users email address. MD5
>is fine. Store that. Even publish it. Its useless to a spammer but its
>wildly improbable you get a hash collision. You can now tie together
>submissions but you can't get an email addr out of them without brute
>force testing it. At which point you know the addr anyway
>
>Also the person who knows the email (ie the submitter) can prove they
>submitted the entry so long as MD5 remains a secure hash
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cdin maillist - cdin nospam at cdin.org
>http://mailman.cdin.org/mailman/listinfo/cdin
>
>
>
-----
Jason Dufair
funne nospam at iquest.net
http://www.iquest.net/~funne
http://www.iquest.net/~funne/jdufair.asc for PGP public key.
"A laugh for the newsprint nightmare, a world that never was
Where the questions are all 'why' and the answers are all 'because'"
-Bruce Cockburn