At 06:40 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> From: Barry Shein <bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com>
<snip>
> 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".)
<snip>
> 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.
I have to strongly agree with Vernon here ... but I might paint Receiver
pays in a stronger light. I feel it is absolutely vital that we keep the
economic model in the hands of the receiver. What is lacking currently is
the technological leverage for them to control also what they receive...
but that is far from impossible, it just hasn't been done yet.
When the receiver pays they _can_ have control over what they receive. If
the sender pays then we will all be "watching television" because the
sender will have complete control over everything that is available to be
seen. Only those with deep pockets and the right connections (political and
otherwise) will be able to present their "ideas" if the sender pays. This
is very, very bad. The whole benefit of the Internet is that it lowers the
barrier to the free flow of ideas. It's already well proven that the
current economic model can easily cover the costs of infrastructure. In
fact the costs are truly low enough that the Internet can be made available
to nearly everyone. This is good and can be improved.
If the economic model is shifted then prices will be increased to the level
of the highest bidder raising a barrier that will make it nearly impossible
for any other content to make it onto the net. In that model, no matter
what you are looking for, you will only find what big money wants you to see.
We've got to fix the technical problems with network abuse using technical,
non-centralized means, and we've got to get that work done BEFORE big
business and government find enough leverage to squash the best benefits of
the Internet. To me, that danger is the worst problem presented by spam.
Spam is reaching (has reached) levels where there is a demand for a
solution which means there is money and political favor to be had by anyone
with the ability to force "their particular solution". If we don't short
circuit this problem before that happens then we might as well say goodbye
to any of the potential benefits of the Internet, sit back, and watch it
turn into nothing more than another advertising medium in the absolute
control of the highest bidder and the political whims of the day. (That
would be ironic don't you think? - if the "solution" to the spam (email
advertising) problem squashed everything except advertising in the end?)
I suggest we remain focused on solving the problem of control and the
suppression of abuse. This can be done by technical means in a
decentralized fashion, and we'd better get on with it.
+ adjustments and enhancements to open protocols and standards.
+ distributed, dynamic threat detection and response mechanisms.
+ intelligent controls that allow recipients to define the content they want.
+ adaptive propagation mechanisms to enhance efficiency.
...
(If you don't know what I mean by these things please ask - I'm trying not
to write a book in this note...)
If the infrastructure of the Internet disconnects abusers, and the
definition of abuse is controlled by the recipients, then the economics
will be well defined for the spammer: If you abuse this network you will be
removed from it and _no amount_ of money will get your messages to
unwilling recipients. It will also be well defined for the provider:
Implement these protocols or lose customers to those who do.
If we make the mechanisms for this open and available (not protected IP but
open standards) then they will proliferate _because_ of the spam problem
and will become a natural suppressive force against it. Those who do not
implement the protocols will be inundated with abuse... those that do
implement them will find great benefit... there will be no stopping a
solution like this.
Now lets go build it and stop focusing on greed.
(Be careful what you wish for you might get it!)
_M
Pete McNeil (madscientist)
President, MicroNeil Research Corporation.
Chief SortMonster, www.sortmonster.com.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg