-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
James Lick
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:52 AM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Ecomomics
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
End User (Ease of Use)
The end user sees no change in the operation of email services
on the Internet. They do see a chance in the service offering
where they are now allowed to send and receive X number of emails
per month based on the service plan that they have subscribed to
with their provider.
I think your plan has potential, but once you have a cap in place you
can just make that a hard limit and don't have the charge anything at
all. If the cap is generous enough to cover even a power user's
legitimate email volume, the end user should never even be
aware of it
unless they get 0wn3d. At that point cutting off their
outgoing email
A ceiling is certainly possible. Probably likely. The power
users can buy the next level of service if they like.
until they clean up, while annoying, is much more palatable
than getting
surprised with a fat bill at the end of the month. You also risk
annoying consumer protection agencies and government officials by
charging consumers for fraudulent activity. (Note that in the US
consumers don't need to pay more than $50 in fraudulent credit card
charges unless the credit card company can prove the credit
card holder
was negligent.) In summary, I still don't see what benefit
the overage
charges have over just making it a hard limit.
Good point. Hard limit is doable and realistic. Hypothesizing, I'd say
that if you get blown out by being owned, you can buy a block or
something. Dunno. There's probably an easy "product manager" like
solution somewhere. Thanks.
-M<
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg