At 12:44 PM -0600 3/21/03, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> seen. However e-stamps do address an ISP concern (namely, they don't
> get reimbursed for incoming email, and they can't charge the user, but
There are a few problems with this.
There are *lots* of problems with it. But someone asked what problem
the solution was looking for. And there are certainly some ISPs (not
just The World) who would very much like someone to reimburse them
for the volume of email they have to handle--especially the bounces.
And spammers are only part of the problem.
3. How does one enforce it. Many organizations just get a leased
line. How would they get charged? Would you require that every
cross-domain router MUST have a content-aware packet inspector to
redirect all email to the 'billing machine'? This severely breaks
end-to-end, as showable on #4.
The proposals I've heard from ISPs is that they want to be able to
charge bulk senders for mail destined for users at the ISP. So if
Microsoft wants to send thousands of non-deliverable Passport
messages (to take an actually example) they are going to have to pay
for it.
I understand the pain there. A large percentage of the email I
bounce is from non-spammers who didn't bother to verify and never
clean their lists (for example, deerfield.com used to be a major
offender, although they seem to have finally cleaned up their act.)
In any case, we already have a billing mechanism. If I want to send
email to you, do I not incur half of the technical cost? I incur
bandwidth charges and CPU utilization. I may not incur HD charges,
(but, assuming stuff is removed from the ISP server weekly, those are
pretty small in comparison to the others.)
No, the email sender incurs a much smaller percentage of the cost. I
can trivially send one message to several hundred people at your
site. I send one. You have to process, store and bounce hundreds of
messages. Never mind the customer support costs.
If those sender charges are insufficient to stop spam, why would
merely doubling them, with a 'fair' fictional sender-pays model,
suddenly stop spam? Two-three years ago, internet costs were twice
what they are now, and it didn't stop abuse.
First of all, I never said this had anything to do with spam.
Someone asked who would want stamps--I answered. But in answer to
your question, it's not a doubling of the cost, is way more than that
because you send one message and the ISP handles many more.
> ISPs did (and all ISPs wore white hats), then we wouldn't be sitting
here. From the white-hat ISP perspective, outbound spam is a bug in
their security. e-stamps won't fix that.
Outbound spam is not a bug in security. Outbound spam is like any
other outbound communication. Bits are sent to the internet sourced
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Outbound spam makes very heavy use
of security bugs to go out, precisely *because* ISPs have some degree
of control over their email systems.
from their customers. Though it may be annoying to you, is my ability
to give you a prank phone call a bug in the telephone system?
It is if you use a bluebox to do it.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg