At 02:53 PM 3/18/2003 -0500, Damien Morton wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Schear [mailto:schear(_at_)attbi(_dot_)com]
> >
> >Actually, sender-pays could be implemented at the ISP level.
> ISPs would
> >automatically pay for stamps on outgoing mail, and bill it
> back to the
> >sender.
> >
> >Sender-pays also doesn't even have to use stamps. It can be
> implemented
> >as a financial arrangement between two mail servers (relays or
> >otherwise). Mailservers run by entities that trust each other could
> >even reconcile any handlign fees at the end of the month or
> even year.
>
> How does this work when clients use an open access Wi-Fi link
> or other situations where free and anonymous access is being granted?
Obviously open servers become a financial liability to the people
running them, but then, that's part of the goal.
No, I don't think it is. The goal of sender-pays is to reduce spam by
shifting the burden onto the sender and not the intermediaries, whom ever
they may be. Your alternative might more accurately be called
intermediary-pays.
Nothing stops them from
running free and open servers, but any mail they handle and send on to
other servers will be charged for by the receiving servers, or is simply
not accepted.
Too limiting and unnecessary. A criteria for spam reduction, relatively
widely supported (esp. within the U.S.) on this list, is not to effectively
narrow anonymous communications.
steve
"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg