From: Steve Schear [mailto:schear(_at_)attbi(_dot_)com]
<snip>
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.
Well intermediary-pays allows the intermediary to set the charging
policy. They can implement a sender-pays arrangement, they can offer
sending credits to authenticated members, they can work within a trusted
group of servers that don't charge each other. It's a very flexible
system, on top of which sender-pays can be constructed. The point is -
it turns anybody operating a mailserver into a financially accountable
entity. It also means that only the relationship between the immediate
sender and reciever need be considered at the point of sending (even if
one or both are acting as intermediaries).
I like to think of the system as modeled on the relationships between
national postal services, where each mail server is equivalent to the
national postal service of a single nation. Every nation (server) has
its own handling charges, and every nation has its own international
postage pricing based on their own handling charges and those of the
destination. Two nations (servers) with identical handling fees sending
each other the same volume of mail would, at the end of the day, have no
currency changing hands. In this way cooperating peers would have little
financial exposure.
Entities that were net producers of mail would tend to have the greatest
financial exposure.
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.
Users wanting unimpeded anonymous communications to reach them would
tend to migrate to servers with no handling charges.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg