On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:40:16 -0500, Kee Hinckley
<nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com> writes:
At 12:44 PM -0600 3/21/03, Scott A Crosby wrote:
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.
Sure. who wouldn't. I'm sure that Mc.Donalds would like to charge
patrons for unreimbursed cost of toilet paper for their patrons. :)
I don't want email to go this way, with toll roads between every
ISP. If the emails were sent to non-existant addresses, then the ISP
isn't being paid by anyone for the traffic, but the can't they just
block it? If the emails were sent to customers, then is the ISP not
being paid by their customers to deliver them?
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.
My error. I had forgotten about having multiple addresses in a To or
Cc line and the impact of bounce messages. It was true only insofar as
the origional message.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg