I think the primary cost is the recipients cost in classifying a
ddeleting mail, and ISPs costs in handling complaints.
Bandwidth is a smaller aspect of the problem, so I think that would be
a good tradeoff - bandwidth for less received spam.
The problems with sender pays are with deployment; could work well if
95% deployed but how to get there.
My favorite at this point is hashcash as a way to avoid false
positives, which gives incentives to users to use as it helps email
reliability short-term, rather than hindering reliability which most
other solutins impose, plus the status quo with filtering is already
leading to reliability problems.
Adam
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:11:00PM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
I've not seen any of the "Sender pays" (camram, money or otherwise) or
"Whitelist" people address this issue...
Assumptions:
1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be
they forged or since-closed freemail accounts).
2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email is
spam.
Conclusions:
1. First time contact "bounces", whether to ask for payment, or to ask
for a computation, or to ask for "proof of human", get sent to an
invalid address.
2. Someone (most likely your ISP or email provider) has to deal with
the resulting bounce from the receiving domain.
3. A sender pays system doubles the number of junk emails traveling
through the internet.
4. This can only be solved by somehow solving the problem of falsified
return addresses.
5. Solve (4) and you're half way there (perhaps all the way there?) to
solving the spam problem, and you don't need sender pays.
Anyone in the sender pays camp want to address these points?
Matt.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg