From: Barry Shein <bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com>
...
> That's still nonsense.
Why thank you for the collegial consideration!
You're welcome. I really think that on alternate Thursdays you
try to solve spam from the perspective of an AOL with 80,000,000
eyeballs to rent to the highest bidder. That's a fine model from
some perspectives, but not mine.
...
Well, that's how it's worked.
But then again without change that's also the system that let all this
massive spam breed.
Foolish me I thought we were here to propose CHANGES which might
ameliorate the spam problem.
I think switching to sender pays is impossible, even if it were
desirable or practical with some other history. Except in the
perverted cases where big advertisers pay big sellers of "eyes,"
there are insurmountable practical problems in authorization,
authentication, and general accounting. Sender pays for email
makes just as much sense as sender-pays-per-IP-packet, which about
15 years after it was first pushed, makes even less sense.
(Yes, I've heard of peering fees and approximations to "settlements".)
If
> your customers don't pay you enough to deal with their email including
> the FTC's DNC confirmations, then you should either raise your rates
> or fire those customers that are too expensive to deal with.
And if you don't have time or inclination to deal with all the spam
then you should hire a full-time secretary to pre-screen your email so
you only see what you want and otherwise just be quiet about it. It's
not a problem, you're just too poor.
Plenty of spam is sent in my direction, thank you very much. Like
everyone else, I deal with it.
Ah, so easy to throw the other guy's money around!
Yes, but what you're doing is something else and worse. You're
demanding a cut of other people's action because you're apparently
unwilling or unable to charge your customers whatever your serivces
cost.
What if such an account as you describe, honestly, would cost $100/mo
or more, w/o connectivity fees?
The email will end. Fortunately, we both know that such a number is
silly nonsense.
When is spam a problem? When you have to pay someone full-time to sort
through your email or when I'm forced to raise prices to a level which
kills the technology just so AT&T can deliver all the mail they want
for free?
Those would be bad events. It would also be bad if a large astroid
landed in the Atlantic. Fortunately, both are very unlikely events.
I think a major point of why we are all here is because, in various
ways, massive spamming is making e-mail as a technology untenable as
conceived. That would include its presumed or at least desireable
economics.
And who are you to say I should charge my customers more to cover the
costs of bulk-mailers? Why not charge THE BULK MAILERS. Doh!
Because it is impractical to charge the mailers that cause problems.
You're just advocating for receiver pays.
Which is your right.
But just so we're all clear.
Receiver pays is what we have. It's not perfect, but until you raise
the cost of email to at least the cost of U.S.P.S. junk mail, it's
the only possible system.
...
The point is: Stop being willfully ignorant.
That's good advice. Concerning sender-pays:
- who runs the machinery to collect the fees and how much does that
entity charge?
- who gets how much of the fees?
- how do you prevent abuses such as signing up for the FTC's DNC
1000 times only to collect the fee?
- how do you keep the fee low enough to not kill the utility of
email that you are trying to preseve against the ravages of spam?
- how do you get people to give up the original point-to-point
data protocol? The RIAA hasn't had a lot of success against "file
sharing."
There are facile answers for all of those issues. I think any real
answer to all of them simultaneously is indistinguishable from extending
the U.S. Postal Service's monopoly on paper mail to email, complete
with $0.50/message "e-postage."
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg