xxxxxxxx <xxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Perfect description of the protocol.
Thank you.
2018–02–23 1:32 GMT+03:00 xxx@xxx>:
> However a better system would be pay to send, be paid to receive.
earn.com does exactly that already and it is based on Bitcoin.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:27 PM, xxx@xxx wrote:
In article <CACMCW-PHGXRjqck3mzvs7EsBYxZ=VT_p29xSPMdBE5hRSHq45w@mail.gmail.com> you write:>1. PoW can be good to fight against SPAM/DOS attacks where you distribute>the load to the…
2018–03–02 18:32 GMT+03:00 xxx@xxx:
If you think about PSMTP again, try to imagine the new environment of thenear future rather than the present and the past. You may think about theimpact of Cryptocurrency, end-point TEE, DANE etc. on…
Dear all,
Thank you for your time. The discussions have moved forward each round helping me see different aspects and develop the idea further. I hope you also found answers to your questions and understand PSMTP better.
Questions I received show that I failed explaining the P-SMTP world to some of the people in the list. This is a further clarification.
Before you read, mark the following:
2018–02–28 20:53 GMT+03:00 xxx@xxx:
In article <CACMCW-MX+E4t1feHg9xipKn6V1S4ASZS4wA4ifKoK5cL3wY_7A@mail.gmail.com> you write:>Anyone who is not capable of installing, filling, using a crypto wallet>cannot be a part of PSMTP. They can…
First, your mail has gone to my spam box at Gmail, which funnily shows we must do better anti-spam. Well, PSMTP does not suffer false positive.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:27 AM, xxx@xxx> wrote:
2018–02–27 22:53 GMT+03:00 xxxx xxxx<xxxx@xxx.xxx>[1]:
First thing’s first. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Let me answer your questions in an order providing a train of thought.
I received some remarks and challenges to my proposal for PSMTP. Some through the mail list, some in private. I researched the anti-spam state-of-the-art on the web. I checked patents, implementations, services, products, techniques, etc.
