Steve Schear <s(_dot_)schear(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
A promising way to curb spam: Charge the sender.
I've always been somewhat mystified by these solutions. While they
appear to be useful, they drastically change the trust model for
network traffic. (SMTP =~ no trust needed or used, $$ =~ trust, who?) I
haven't seen analyses that such a change in the trust model would be
acceptable to the recipient.
That is, would the possible centralization of the administration of
$$ (i.e. trust verification) be less problematic to the recipient than
spam? I could see people deciding that receiving ~100 spams/week is a
reasonable trade-off for preventing a third party from having access
to your email messages, or habits.
In addition, changing the cost/benefit trade-off for one network
behaviour will also result in changing the cost/benefit trade-offs for
other network behaviours. If SMTP has costs, some "inventive" person
will discover a way to avoid the cost through abusing another
protocol.
As a more general statement, I'm not sure that the current
trust/consent model on the Internet can be applied to the future,
unless we re-visit the whole gamut of assumptions, designs,
implementations, and use patterns. But that's outside of the scope of
ASRG...
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg