On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the > real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent
Which in the real world will never happen. Sender-pays, if deployed, will end up being something like MS's Penny Black, where a third party collects a tax to "allow" sending mail. Those of us who don't care for such things will continue running MTAs that ignore the sillyness, and drop "456 - send more postage" messages on the floor. > out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and > subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be > accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably > less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing > list operators. Using our pre-existing, wildly popular micropayment infrastructure, no doubt? Signing messages and skipping the cash redistribution solves the problem without presupposing nonexistent clearing mechanisms. (Demanding message signing creates a different class of problems, of course.) -j -- Jamie Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
