CDRv2 discussion (was: Re: Al-qaeda.net deprecated)

Riad S. Wahby rsw at jfet.org
Fri Jan 24 19:07:29 PST 2014


grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean ethically someone should do it. But unless a filtering
> node agrees to forward messages filtered from its own list through
> its backend and out to all the other nodes for them
> to make their own choices, there will be holes...
>
> Similarly for carrying all backend received messages.
> carries posted: yes/no
> carries backend: yes/no
> despam mechanism [posted/backend]: describe here
> moderation [posted/backend]: policy here
> peers with: who

In CDRv1, all nodes would in principle forward all messages to other
nodes, only filtering the feed going to that node's own users according
to the local filtering policy.

It makes sense to ask nodes to publish details of their local policies.
I think personally I would hesitate to peer with any node that didn't
forward everything and let me apply my own filter. I assume most other
operators would as well, so practically speaking no one would run a node
that didn't (claim to) forward everything.

Next question: how paranoid are we, i.e., do we attempt to enforce this
policy somehow? This goes beyond fault tolerance towards attempting to
solve the problem of enforcing peering contracts with untrusted CDRv2
nodes, which is clearly a more... intersting one.

I have been busy with real life, and haven't dedicated much more time to
thinking about this. I'm hopeful that tomorrow I will have the
opportunity to do so at least a little bit.

-=rsw



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list