RE: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> [mailto:asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
> Devdas Bhagat
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:49 AM
> To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: 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.
Then it's possible you'd be forced to the telco's relay and billed
accordingly.

Why are you asking me these questions that you know the answers to 
already?

> 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.
Sure I do. This is not some new technology we're discussing. Is it?

> So long as you do not have centrally controlled servers for email, any
> feasibility of billing for email is negligible.
I don't know a tier1 that doesn't have centrally controller servers,
or any ISP for that matter. If they don't offer email services, then
 I guess they don't block port 25.

> The telecom model works because phones are not inherently 
> peer to peer.
I don't understand the relevance. Please explain.

> The intelligence built into the system is in the core, not at 
> the edge.
I don't think I've said anything different.

> 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?
Have you read the RFC for SIP? 

Let's use Vonage for an example. There's a call setup and teardown
via a centralized server because their plans are flat rate to a measurement
of minutes.


> > 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.
No it wouldn't. You'd have to measure every email instead of a start
and stop record like RADIUS AAA.

> > > 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/
Ok, flat rate. But that's what I'm talking about. A flat rate 
network that charges upon violation of the SLA you pay for i.e.
you pay 9.99 for 100 bi-directional emails a month, and it goes
up from there.

-M< 

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