Barry Shein wrote:
Personally I think this group would probably have done their job if
they could unanimously or near-unanimously or at least with some
amount of force of conviction just tell the public we've studied the
matter and basically we're trying to do the impossible which is
regulate a free, valuable resource by some unworkable set of rules
either implemented via software or some unnamed vehicle of human fiat
(i.e., regulation, legislation, big men with sticks...)
Some time ago I wrote an unpublished draft on this specific topic
(http://www.shaftek.org/asrg/draft-irtf-asrg-ietf-role-in-fighting-spam-00.txt).
In particular, my opinion expressed at that time was:
"Unlike the belief of many parties, both inside and outside the IETF,
the role of the IETF in addressing the spam problem is limited. Being
that the problem is fundamentally non-technical in nature, there aren't
many technical solutions possible to solve it. Even technical solutions
that address different aspects of the spam problem are not necessarily
relevant to the IETF's core mission as a standards organization unless
these solutions involve changes to existing standards or creation of
new standards. While the IETF has historically provided a forum for
discussion of many issues related to the Internet, and facilitated
various technical efforts, its primary missions remains to be
a standards organization and not the body responsible for solving
every single problem on the Internet."
Examples of standards work that can help with the spam problem somewhat
are standards to let ISPs talk to each other easier and in more
automated ways including abuse reporting standards and notifications of
blocking; BCPs; etc. There are many other examples of things we can do
but trying to solve the spam problem is not something that is possible
in this group alone. However, we can still do standards work that can
address parts of the problem.
As such, the only chance of beginning to tackle the spam problem
requires some sort of postage, simple charging, to simply make
resource usage reflect costs. For everyone. Analogous to paper postal
systems with, perhaps, some creative twists to reflect the low cost of
common usage, preferably thrown back to the ISPs et al.
People do not hack phones or fax machines in the real world - it is
simply not possible with the same ease as it is in the digital world.
Another issue is convincing people to switch - the unlimited/free
pricing scheme has been embedded into the psyche of Internet users to
such extend, that it will very hard to convince people to switch. Even
if you float the "no spam" flag, the first few pieces of spam arriving
in their inbox, be it paid or hijacked, will break that idea very quickly.
ISPs also have to be convinced to spend money on supporting and
participating in the e-postage infrastructure. Given the low profit
margins they are getting today and the uncertain benefit that will be
gained via e-postage, they will not run towards the idea so fast. This
is why people have suggested to add some benefit to the mix such as
"registered" mail, etc.
However, there are some people including group members that are working
on the idea. If standards are required for e-postage interoperability at
some point, the IETF can develop them. But to get to that point requires
a workable e-postage system with many technical issues addressed,
support from the ISP and IT communities, and users who are willing to
pay for it and use it.
I would suggest that those who are interested in the idea put their
heads together to address the technical issues, and start poking the
industry to see if there is interest. So far, I am not aware of a single
group that is working on e-postage, possibly because of lack of support
in the industry and the community.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg