From: Barry Shein <bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com>
You are in favor of the current "recipient pays" model for bulk email
etc.
We disagree. I think bulk mailers should pay their freight.
I just would like to point out that not going along with your
"recipient-pays" scheme is hardly nonsense, as you assert.
Next time try to use facts and reasoning to back up your point of view
rather than insults. I realize sometimes it's satisfying to convince
oneself that not only do they disagree, but the other person is a fool
for not seeing it your way. Well, whatever floats your self-esteem.
To be honest, I find your point of view, that the consumer will pay
whatever it takes to receive all the bulk mail anyone can justify
sending him or her, to be in a word: Nonsense.
It's a good thing that's not my point of view, although my view
may still be nonsense.
I think consumers will and must pay whatever it takes to receive the
mail they want (bulk or not) and not receive the rest. That means
that customers will variously choose to pay to
- have filters run on their behalf,
- buy software that implements challenge-response mechanisms,
- use whitelists that make their mailboxes private and unreachable
even to real long lost friends,
- have their congresscritters write laws that reduce spam somewhat.
Some consumers will even pay their "eyeballs" to free and almost free
providers. That's the only possible real world implementation of
sender-pays. From outside, Hotmail is already in the business of
filtering unwanted junk advertising except that which Hotmail has been
paid to deliver.
Perhaps I'm being silly, but I doubt you'd take world.std.com in
that direction. If I'm wrong, I think there will always be ISPs that
don't go that way.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg