@doesntgolf I haven't covered that, but the answer is... no! You don't need an ACL for revocation (or for tracking abuse)! And here's how we can do it.

An ocap is an unforgeable reference right? (As in, if you don't know it, you don't have a way of faking it.)

So, what if we have the "real" object, and then what we actually hand the person is a "proxy" object that forwards messages? This proxy could attach information so we know "who's capability" is being used when they use it.


@doesntgolf Now, let's say we see that they're abusing our resource through that proxy. Here's the second part! Our proxy contains a flag that we can set, and then it *stops forwarding messages*! But we hold onto the capability to flip that bit... a "self-destruct button" if you will... and since they don't have that, we can disable it if necessary, that's our power.

So as you can see, we can get both accountability and revokeability!


This is interesting and gives me an idea. Could we do something similar for email? Instead of giving people our actual email address (real object) to send us email, we give them a random (so it's unforgeable) newly generated alias address (proxy object). If they start spamming us, we delete the alias. If they share the alias with a spammer, we can hold them accountable. Are there any systems that implement this?
I don't understand. How is gmail implementing this kind of object capability?

@arunisaac Yep, people have been doing that for some time! Many mail servers even support this out of the box.

You can also read up on Petmail which has similar ideas to what I am describing

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!