On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 09:56 AM, Paul Judge wrote:
Mathew, it sounds like you are volunteering to lead some work into the
"sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas?
Yes, but they're in my head at the moment.
Is what you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights
or SHRED or is it a different approach?
[...]
IBM's Selling Interrupt Rights:
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf
My thought is that something similar to "Selling Interrupt Rights" is
probably what's needed, but I think it's premature to say that that's
exactly right in all details.
I think what I'd like to do is try and get some agreement on
requirements. For instance, *I* think a fairly basic requirement should
be that the user be allowed to set the interrupt price at zero, so if
people want to keep on allowing the entire world to send them e-mail
for free, they can do so--nobody would be forced to adopt the new
system.
On the other hand, I don't see the proposed "escrow" mechanism as being
very worthwhile, for social reasons: it becomes a source of potential
friction between sender and recipient. If the recipient decides whether
to deduct the fee after receiving the e-mail, the sender is liable to
take it as a personal slight. Better to always deduct the fee, which
will also act as a form of market pressure to keep fees low. But hey,
I could be convinced otherwise.
Canonical example: You'd like to discourage your mother from sending
you those endlessly-forwarded chain letters and heartwarming e-mails.
If you set an interrupt price of a nickel, she might stop and think
before pushing the send button ten times a day. But if you have to push
a button to "punish" her and take the nickel, are you really going to
do it?
So anyway, should I set up a mailing list for the discussion?
mathew
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg