"Tom Thomson" <tthomson(_at_)neosinteractive(_dot_)com> wrote:
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?
Or maybe one paragraph read like a reply to the preceding one, but
neither was quoted.
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?
If you count, you'll notice that the single ">" in my message was
inserted by _me_; your message lacked it, which is why I believed you
quoted improperly.
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.
I don't know how you conclude that there's more business than
individual email; however, according to those with the ability to
measure, the majority of email is spam.
In any case, for the purposes of this sort of structure, a business
might as well be considered an ISP.
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?
There is no "the ISPs". There are lots of individual ISPs. They
don't cooperate all that well.
Guess what will happen to the first ISP that demands payments to
receive email. If you guessed anything other than "it won't get any"
you lose.
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.
How do you set it up and enforce it? You can't get there from here.
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.
So a low enough stamp cost won't deter spammers, and a higher stamp
cost will get them to join and still not deter them.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg