An implicit assumption in this discussion is that in the ePostage
model money must flow from sender to receiver.
Well, yes. The basic problem with spam is the imposition of cost on
unwilling recipients; I see little point in epostage that pays some
other party, as then the recipient has still lost; it's just that
someone else has benefited instead. I fail to see how this improves
matters significantly.
If what you're after is a deterrent effect, call it what it is, a fine,
and make the amount more appropriate to a fine!
While that is an attractive model for many reasons, there are other
models in which rather than in-band per message, the money instead
flows out of band up front, and presumably more in bulk, though
likely not to message recipients. In such designs, many of the
constraints articulated below are alleviated.
Indeed, if you think about it, this is more directly analogous to the
gummed-paper physical postage stamps we all know and love.
Yes, though there most of the cost the stamp is paying is incurred by
the entity who sold the stamp, rather than the recipient.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML
mouse(_at_)rodents(_dot_)montreal(_dot_)qc(_dot_)ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg