Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions

On 28/12/04 08:04 -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
<snip>
> Youre fantasizing "War of The eWorlds". I'm suggesting a cap on current
> services so that any obvious overuse (spam?) is paid for - which in turn
A cap valid for whom? And enforced how? I run my own server, and
smarthost through a host I control, so I obviously do not have caps.

Viruses and significant volumes of spam go direct to MX, so you do not
have the luxury of forcing them through ISP controlled servers either.

So long as you do not have centrally controlled servers for email, any
feasibility of billing for email is negligible.

The telecom model works because phones are not inherently peer to peer.
The intelligence built into the system is in the core, not at the edge.

If your phone system was to go peer to peer, as with VoIP, do you think
that billing for such traffic would even be feasible?

> drives entities to act by either a.de-zombify or b. not sending
> junk mail - because it's not cost effective ie. comcast charges a commercial
> rate for the line, a fee over the cap, a higher cost plan, etc. 
It would be easier to just charge users by the byte.
 
> > I imagine that the same hackers who gave us P2P will find a way to
> > send email transparently, without necessarily using the existing email
> > network. Then we'll have two email networks, a free one and a 
> > metered one.
> Grasping at straws. There is NO SUCH THING as a free network. This
> is 2004. In 1994 there was the appearance of free, but univerisities
> bore the brunt of the "cost" for "free".
s/free/flat rate/

Devdas Bhagat

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg