At 07:28 AM 4/30/03 -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote:
From: "Kee Hinckley" <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com>
I'm not talking about the technical difficulty. I'm talking about
the complete infeasibility of this solution from a business
standpoint. It's an absolute non-starter. Have you ever done any
work in the commercial email business?
I'm sorry, I have no sympathy. You're just whining,
"I'm not part of the problem, why should I bear any inconvenience
or expense?"
Because the current system (anarchy) is broken.
I have to remind myself - FAQ are asked frequently.
The IETF can not enforce a proposal.
At best, it can issue a standards document which defines what
they believe are best practices.
That means any solution perceived as being more expensive than
the current solution will not be used in practice.
Even if you somehow managed to get everyone to stop supporting
SMTP over port 25 in favor of some new, more costly solution,
people would just revive it on some other port.
-----
I often ask people if they would be willing to pay $1 a month
to remove 95% of the spam from their mailbox and they say "yes".
If I then hand my business card, and offer to sign them up for
$10 a year and they say "not right now". My conclusion?
People aren't actually willing to pay very much to end spam.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg