On 10/4/2012 9:12 PM, Landon Hurley wrote: > Won't the overhead from running gpg or equivalent limit the amount of > spam that will occur afterward anyway? The whole reason that spam works > and is profitable is in the agreggate of millions of messages. If I > introduce a .5 second latency, that undermines the whole economic > incentive, because I can no longer send messages quickly enough. Or am I > overestimating the time it takes to run a single message through > 1024-bit RSA with SHA1?
The task is parallelizable, and botnets are large. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
