I hate to get drawn into this nonsense again, but I couldn't let this pass
without making what I hope is an intelligent general comment;
It only makes sense to raise the current pricing
schemes to remove illigitimate companies from the Internet, leaving only
those with significant investments in the web business free to win back
public support.
First, I'm unconvinced that the suggestion that the one "raise the current
pricing" implies the other "remove illigitimate companies", and that by the
implication "those with significant investments" are only good guys.
By rasing the 'bar' of initial expenditure verus return we could
eliminate a
significant porportion of Internet fraud.
Secondly, I fear that this would indiscrimiately eliminate a significant
proportion of the grass roots use of the internet which has so far
characterised many of the best examples of its cultural development and in
my opinion provided much of the network's real value to individuals (c.f.
corporations).
'GIEIS' will employ this
technique as well as others.
In these discussions should we not be trying allow existing legitimate use
to continue unhindered?
I believe that we should be trying to detect and prevent abuse, not applying
arbitrary demographic filters.
Suggesting that spam can be reduced by making it difficult for less wealthy
organisations to offer email transport is as unacceptable to me as would be
this group proposing that spam could be reduced if we took the simple step
of preventing access by IP addresses registered to certain parts of Asia. To
do either would be technically correct, but surely neither is socially
acceptable as a long term solution?
d.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg