First things first. The resource being consumed/abused is the
recipient's inbox. Therefore we need to make any charge a condition
of
entry into a participating recipient's inbox. That means the
recipient
is the one who needs to decide whether a stamp is needed, and whether
any given stamp is sufficiently valid.
Well, I disagree with this 100%, it's just false.
If people could send advertising via paper post for free do you think
the problem is primarily the recipient's? What about the effect it has
on the letter carriers and the postal system in general?
This is another proposal which works forward from spam is free, just
annoying.
Paper post is charged for on a transportation-costs basis. If paper
post were free, then utilisation would indeed go up, increasing it's
cost, at which point it would no longer be free. So it stabilises in a
non-free state, just like it is today. QED.
By contrast, the transportation costs of e-mail are practically nil.
Spammers happily paid for phat pipes to send mail through, before
widespread blacklisting forced them into using zombies. The cost is,
and has always been, the recipient's time spent in sifting through the
mess. (I count the recipient's ISP in this as well.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi(_at_)chromatix(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/
tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg