On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that
people have don't work.
It doesn't demonstrate any such thing. The physical junk mail I receive is
much more targeted to my family than spam is. I wouldn't bother with spam
filtering if I only got 5-10 junk emails per day. At 350-450 spams per
day, I can't afford not to wory about filters.
In addition to postage, physical mail has significant production costs.
Some junk mail probably costs more than $1 per mail piece. Big incentive
to send it carefully. There is a very low production cost for spam, even
the legitimate retailers who send well designed electronic spam only have
design costs and no significant per piece cost.
It is pure naviety to assert that increasing the cost of sending spam will
not reduce the amount sent. The operative word is REDUCE. Also note that
my choice of words was 'cost'. There are many ways to associate cost with
It isn't a trivial technical problem to revise the electronic message
infrastructure to arrange for payment of postage but to assert that it
can't be done or wouldn't be deployed flys in the face of the relatively
short time frame for adoption of the WWW or IM.
Do you truly believe that if a reliable alternative to the current email
infrastructure were available, which could operate in parallel with the
current infrastructure in which you got minimal unsolicited email, it
wouldn't be quickly adopted by major players?
Ietf mailing list