3. a content-neutral way to control the problem.
It may not be the only possible approach, but the hidden problem with
many other approaches is that they still leave the problem of who gets
to decide what is spam and what is not, particularly at the
infrastructure level.
Put another way for those not following, being able to pay your way
tends to be fair in some generally agreed sense, at least it tends to
be judgement-neutral as to the content.
On the other hand, having to establish some sort of bureaucracy to
decide what is spam and what is not could be a very unpleasant road to
start down.
Imagine if the post office would only deliver your mail if they
thought you had something worthwhile to say.
What a step backwards.
Before 1989 you couldn't buy a connection to the internet unless you
could show some bona-fide usage (defense contracting, and towards the
very end of that era, being a university), and then if you were
approved hook-up was basically free.
When I first began getting the general public onto the net for merely
having $20 to spend in 1989 yes, people raved that it was outrageous
that what was previously free was now being charged for, where would
this lead!?
I think it all worked out mostly ok, regardless of the protestations
of the demagogues who insisted that the net should be free and they
alone should have the power to decide who gets access to that free
resource.
Because that's the way that goes. Either it's for sale, or eventually
someone has to have the power to regulate the resources by policy.
Worth a thought, perhaps.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg