Madscientist <madscientist(_at_)microneil(_dot_)com> wrote:
I must respectfully but strongly disagree. An increase in cost, in general,
does not focus on the root problem of abuse, but does carry with it a host
of undesirable artifacts (well covered elsewhere).
Cost does not always mean money.
One way of increasing the transaction cost for spam is simply to
use filters. The spammer has engaged in a transaction which costed
him something, and which has not resulted in his desired outcome.
It is possible with technical means to drastically reduce the potential for
abuse without increasing costs (fiduciary or otherwise). The goal should be
to make spam (and other forms of abuse) impractical rather than simply
unprofitable.
<sigh> Did I say anything about money or profit?
There is a cost to engaging in network traffic: time, CPU power, and
so on. There is a cost to transactions on the network. Packet
filters, etc., all increase the transaction cost of network
conversations.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg