At 02:18 PM 03/22/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: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.
Barry Shein disagrees with me, but you're correct, as far as you go.
Trying to declare an artificial scarcity somewhere in the system, which almost all of the "sender pays sender's ISP" and some of the "sender pays recipient's ISP" systems do is doomed to failure, either because of evasion or bad social effects or whatever.
Finding a way to collect payments for using the real scarce resource, which is the recipient's time, at prices set by the recipient, has some chance of succeeding. There are of course many ways to fail, but it's at least not doomed from the start.
I concur. The question was never asked of me and I never said I supported having required ISP involvement in the pricing and settlement of send-pays. I think this should be end-user driven, perhaps supported by distributed servers akin to PGP key servers where senders can learn about their intended recipient's keys and cost to accept email. This cost can be in GHz-seconds for PoW or in some monetary unit once real values are practical.
steve
