(Just to be picky, by "costs" you mean "prices", right?)
just to be equally picky outside of a monopoly, prices follow costs.
For example, in the case of MS their aggressive marketing gave them
enough of an effective monopoly in some software areas that they could
raise prices (and costs.) That's not too obscure an example is it?
So you are proposing a monopoly to control pricing? Where are the market
forces you spoke of previously, you cannot have it both ways.
> do we wholesale block entire countries? Does that become censorship?
Well, it'd certainly be reasonable, after some transition period, to
only accept e-mail with a valid e-postage stamp.
well if we are going to implement that sort of infrastructure then why not
just identify the sender with a digest of some sort why make it a "cost"
item
If we could start by re-inventing the entire e-mail system from
scratch then I don't think solving the spam problem is all that
difficult.
I believe most everyone agrees with that.
Yes
But you've got this little problem like a billion or two computers out
there who already do e-mail this way, and firewalls and corporate
policies and routers and servers etc.
Billions? one or two in five for every head of the population. more
exageration I'd say
One nice thing about e-postage is that it could, in theory, be slipped
right w/o particularly interfering with end-users. For example, for an
entire corp it could be done at the edge server, or at the ISP by some
agreement.
Isnt that re-inventing the mail system.
admittedly not for the "billions" of end users but the same goes for every
other system
> Many Many programmers would see such fees as an attack on the
freedom of the
> internet. an attempt by governments to shut down the free flow of
> information under the GUISE of spam control.
You do understand the difference between free as in beer and free as
in speech, right?
any implementation of a charge would be considered as an impediment to free
speech.
I didn't say it had to make sense. But I can assure you many people would
think this way.
its more about resistance to change.
Um, what are they gonna do when they're flooded with spam through this
new system?
How does painting the car yellow make it run faster? etc.
perhaps the new software would be designed to eliminate spam
See your own comments above.
(Red is the faster colour by the way)
> I wasn't in general, but for a list such as this it is
inevitable. does the
> ASRG pay? of course not. For a list like this it must be
recipient pays.
>
> Who else would?
The sender?
the sender *is* the ASRG or at least the list manager
I send one email, the ASRG then distributes it to all recipients.
Are you saying I should attach an open cheque to my email and say "charge
this with as many recipients as you have on the list"?
or perhaps you are saying that one charge one email regardless of the number
of recipients?
There is a slight flaw there.
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 12:33 PM
To: Chris
Cc: Barry Shein; John Levine; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Subject: Re: [Asrg] My take on e-postage
On April 29, 2004 at 11:14 asrg(_at_)rebel(_dot_)com(_dot_)au (Chris) wrote:
> in reply
>
> >
> > > So if we take that into consideration what is the limit on the
> > > number of
> > > emails for free or charged 10,20 per day ?
> >
> > One would imagine it'd become a marketing issue, just like
the monthly
> > price of a connection and how fast that is, etc.
> >
>
> Marketing drives cost down, not up. take a look at bandwidth
charges now and
> 5 years ago.
(Just to be picky, by "costs" you mean "prices", right?)
Well, if you said "in the case of bandwidth marketing drove the prices
down, not up" perhaps I'd agree, but I'd be hard-put to agree that's
some sort of universal principle, that it always drives prices down.
For example, in the case of MS their aggressive marketing gave them
enough of an effective monopoly in some software areas that they could
raise prices (and costs.) That's not too obscure an example is it?
> If I was to sell a hosting service and wanted to beat the competition I
> might say "email at only 10c per 10,000 or get your hosting
here and we will
> throw in free email!
Unless there were costs, something akin to settlement, where you had
to pay for the amount of email that flowed through your system and,
presumably, somehow pass those costs on to your customers.
Obviously if we're giving away free stamps then it ultimately doesn't
matter much what stamp you stick on something, may as well print your
own.
> > > Who polices that level. what about China who polices it there?
> >
> > Again, the market.
> >
>
> Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was talking about e-mail
spewing out of
> places like China.
> Do you think they will stop it? and if they do a hundred other
countries
> will take it up.
> do we wholesale block entire countries? Does that become censorship?
Well, it'd certainly be reasonable, after some transition period, to
only accept e-mail with a valid e-postage stamp.
Is that censorship? I dunno. Is forcing them to use SMTP censorship?
>
> > > I will start writing one as soon as e-postage looks inevitable!
> >
> > Yeah well you could also try setting up your own phone and postage
> > systems and tell us how it works out.
> >
>
> Take a look at all the other p2p programs, e-mail could become
irrelevant.
If we could start by re-inventing the entire e-mail system from
scratch then I don't think solving the spam problem is all that
difficult.
I believe most everyone agrees with that.
But you've got this little problem like a billion or two computers out
there who already do e-mail this way, and firewalls and corporate
policies and routers and servers etc.
One nice thing about e-postage is that it could, in theory, be slipped
right w/o particularly interfering with end-users. For example, for an
entire corp it could be done at the edge server, or at the ISP by some
agreement.
It's not unique in that regard, but it's useful to keep in mind that
this is a very important kind of quality for a proposed solution.
> If you don't think a lone group of programmers can introduce
such a system
> look at the software you use everyday
> especially open source, Linux and Apache are two prime examples.
No problem with that.
Um, what are they gonna do when they're flooded with spam through this
new system?
How does painting the car yellow make it run faster? etc.
> To compare an e-mail style system with a bricks, mortar, hardware and
> employee system is simply trying to fool the more gullible of
us, there is
> simply no comparison.
>
> Furthermore the bricks and mortar and hardware are all in
place. all you
> need is the enthusiasm. add a fee to e-mail and overnight you
create the
> enthusiasm.
>
> Many Many programmers would see such fees as an attack on the
freedom of the
> internet. an attempt by governments to shut down the free flow of
> information under the GUISE of spam control.
You do understand the difference between free as in beer and free as
in speech, right?
Does having to affix postage to your letters constitute an
infringement on your freedom?
>
>
> > Who suggested $.20? Who suggested it'd be recipient-pays?
> >
> > > And who pays for the duplicates we all receive?
> >
> > Who suggested it'd be recipient-pays?
>
> I wasn't in general, but for a list such as this it is
inevitable. does the
> ASRG pay? of course not. For a list like this it must be
recipient pays.
>
> Who else would?
The sender?
--
-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