Seth Breidbart <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote@
"Tom Thomson" <tthomson(_at_)neosinteractive(_dot_)com> wrote:
(He didn't quote properly, so it isn't clear what he wrote.)
Maybe your MUA needs fixing. Or maybe you aren't aware of the convention
that the symbol ">" at the beginning of a line indicates that the line is
quoted, and the absence of that symbol indicates that it is not?
One practice that I don't indulge in is carefully selecting which parts I
quote in a way cleverly designed to suggest that the person quoted holds a
position opposite to that which he actually holds. And a practice I do
indulge in is indicating where I have cut a quote with the conventional
"[snip]". Perhaps that's what you mean when you say I "didn't quote
properly", since you appear to have adopted the opposite policy?
How come SSL certificates in HTTPS transactions can work? Aren't they
reasonably analogous?
No; anybody can generate one. Somebody who wanted billions of valid
ones could just spend a little CPU time.
I think it';s pretty clear here that you are answering Barry, not me. What
do you thing ">" at the beginning of a line means?
For most users, all outgping email is already routed through the
ISP's outgoing mail servers, so the extra costs they cause are
limited to the cost of generating the digest and signing it. For
most emails, outgpoing email is not routed through the ISP's
servers, so there is also the additional cost of accepting, storing,
and forwarding the email.
The reason for the discrepancy is probably just spam.
No, it certainly isn't. Most users are not savvy, are using dial-up (or
ADSL) connections, and all there stuff goes through the ISPs server (which
is where thir dial-up connection or their always-on DSL connection ends).
Most email comes from business users who use there own mail server, rather
than their ISP's mail server. That's nothing to do with spam. Certainly
spammers may have some influence on the size of the majority of email that
doesn't go through the IPS's server, but which direction is that influence -
some would claim they reduce it (lots of spam from hijacked machines,
probably on dial-up accounts which have to go through ISP's server).
A charging model which allows say 50 emails per day free will
probably leave email free to the average consumer
What stops spammers from using ISPs that allow unlimited email, or
inventing their own "ISPs"?
Nothing, that's one of the resons the e-post idea won't work without
transfer payments (it's just a small generalisation of the "the spammer sets
up his own ISP" problem that I pointed out and you have conveniently
snipped).
There is no need to introduce inter-ISP payments for handling
each-other's email traffic distinct from any payments already used
for providing bandwidth and/or handling general internet traffic.
Somebody who hosts a website generally doesn't much care how much
somebody else's customers look at that website (and somebody with
customers doesn't care what websites they look at or how much). But
the whole problem here is that people _do_ care about how much email
gets received.
If that's true, why haven't the ISPs already introduced such inter-ISP
payments to cover this thing they care about? inter-ISP payments for email
volume might work extremely well as a means of reducing spam (since it would
encourage ISPs obliged to make the payments to crack down on it) if set at a
high enough level, and would certainly work better on their own without the
added complication of e-stamps or whatever involving the end users.
The european postal union certainly deosn't have such transfer
payments between its members, why should an email system?
If it doesn't, what stops a spammer from joining?
Nothing, except that if the stamp cost is low enough he has no incentive to
join. Wasn't that the precise point I made before, and which you have
snipped?
The vast bureaucracy may not be too great a price to pay to
eliminate spam. Government control of our email (through government
regulation of the clearing houses) may not be too great a price to
pay.
It is for something that won't work. (When has a government provided
anything else?)
Are you agreeing with me vehemently, or something? The sentence you snipped
here read "Personally, I'd prefer to carry on searching for a better
solution."
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg