--
> > The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting
> > the real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be
> > sent out without postage, but with cryptographic signature,
> > and subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list
> > would be accompanied by payment,
At 07:10 PM 3/22/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 03:49 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
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
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 03:49 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
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
M
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]>,
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, wh
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.
> t
--
On 21 Mar 2003 at 23:01, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
> We all want to get rid of spam. I think most folks on this
> list are in favor of using market dynamics to influence
> behaviour. I think adding an artificial fee to sending email
> is stupid. It is creating false scarcity to fix a broken
