Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:18:10 -0500
From: Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
Mail-Followup-To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: clue inc
X-URL: http://www.clueinc.net/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
> I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not
That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble.
I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure level a bad way to address spam.
What part of the infrastructure is being made scarce? You and I aren't part of the infrastructure. The selection of a value for our time is just another market force at work.
> the transport costs sender-pays is trying to price its our > time. Sender-pays is trying to enable email recipients to establish a > price for their eyeballs and attention. Advertisers do all the time.
Cash exchange for mail transport will simply create a new profit center for ISPs.
But its not cash for email transport. The transport cost is unaffected. Its cash for our eyeballs. I find this a distinction WITH a difference. Perhaps you do not.
This is no different than the various request-permission-to-transmit proposals, aside from adding cost to the mix. Doing so will cut down on normal person to person discourse before it fixes spam.
Yes, some Balkination may occur at the outset, but this is something that is recipient controlled not something mandated by ISPsm etc.
Presupposing micropayments for a new net.service has been a nonstarter for years, and I fully expect it to continue to be so.
The IETF anti-spam discussion seems to have broken down into a different "religious" camps, with many asserting that nothing that can't immediately be rolled out on a universal basis or isn't fully functional until universally accepted should even proposed. I disagree.
Sender pays can be rolled out using PoW stamps almost immediately. Yes, some early adopters may find themselves "cut off" from senders who either can't or won't make the effort to create and attach computation stamps. For this reason sender-pays should be serious considered by most businesses until widely adopted. But for individuals inundated with spam it could be a quick and effective solution. Of course, the question they will ask when the spam stops is how many others aren't sending email cause they think I'm fringe. :)
steve
