ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up

2003-07-14 20:08:59
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 09:18 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
  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.

That's why it's important to design the protocols correctly.

It's perfectly possible to implement digital cash systems such that the "bank" doesn't get to see the e-mail, the sender and recipient can stay anonymous to each other, yet the recipient can be confident that his account was credited with the appropriate cash sum.

There's also no reason why it would be necessary to have a centralized system. You could have a number of administration entities, just like you do for DNS etc.

I've been thinking for a while that a bunch of people on this list, myself included, are pretty much convinced that the "use as much resources and as much of people's attention as you like, for free" model is fundamentally broken, and that sender-pays will be necessary.

It seems to me that those of us who think "sender pays" is necessary could usefully set up a separate list to come up with requirements, and a proposed implementation model, which could then be brought back here for the inevitable nit-picking.

It also seems clear to me that even if the majority think that "sender pays" won't work, that's no reason why it need be killed. Unlike many other solutions, it can quite happily "compete" with free e-mail and live or die by whether it works in the real world; it doesn't need universal adoption to be useful.


mathew


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>