Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions
2004-12-27 15:24:41
Well, if one wants to resist the idea one merely builds scenarios out
anything left unsaid which lead to the conclusion that the idea is
untenable.
I suspect if someone got a nuisance overcharge, say a dollar or two,
for mail being sent by a virus on their machine they'd become
interested in fixing it both because that's attracted their attention
and who wants to think their computer is under the control of a virus?
And there probably exists a charge where it's not worthwhile changing
ISPs etc if one suspects a more direct fix exists. Heck, a $0.00
charge but just being informed that your computer sent 12,000 messages
this month as opposed to your usual 47/month might attract some
people's attention, particularly if coupled with "next month that'll
start costing you $2.73 (whatever)"
Also, as to switching to another ISP, if they don't fix the infection
it's not clear this wouldn't just repeat the problem. I assume these
viruses periodically send their current IP address to the mother ships
even if just to adapt to DHCP contracts.
On December 27, 2004 at 10:29 laird(_at_)lbreyer(_dot_)com (Laird Breyer) wrote:
On Dec 26 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
I suspect the solution, one way or another, to spam will be
per-message charging (with various schemes like first 1000/month
included with monthly fee.)
Why do you think that charging a third party who isn't sending the spam
a visible fee is going to make that third party go seek out the spam
senders and neutralize them, so as not to be charged further?
Here third party = user, sender = user's zombie, and I would think
that the user will want to limit his costs by leaving the ISP rather
than fixing his PC. After all cost of new PC >> cost of ISP rent.
It's also interesting that if you substitute third party = some ISP,
sender = some spammer who uses that ISP, and visible fee = IP subnet
bans, then you end up with the discredited blacklist concept.
--
Laird Breyer.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
-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
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, (continued)
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Hannigan, Martin
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Laird Breyer
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions,
Barry Shein <=
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Laird Breyer
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Laird Breyer
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Laird Breyer
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Laird Breyer
- [Asrg] Maybe Senator Hatch had the right idea, Walter Dnes
Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, gep2
Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, gep2
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, John Levine |
Next by Date: |
Re: [Asrg] The pay-per message myth again, Barry Shein |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Laird Breyer |
Next by Thread: |
Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions, Laird Breyer |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|