Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops)
2008-11-17 12:40:51
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, David Wall wrote:
And to inject a slightly different perspective, the BOFH in me says
it's one of the best reasons _to_ do so. Financial penalties for
getting pwned are one of the very few things that might actually get
users to stop being idiots about such things. As long as running a
grossly insecure machine on the net incurs minor-to-no costs, people
will continue doing it.
I agree in principle, though believe such a system is just too unwieldy to
attempt in a global email world. What we need first is some sort of provable
sender id. This step itself is incredibly hard to get done, hard to get
cooperation on, yet hard to understand why trying to prove who sent an email
would be such an issue.
You can't charge someone if you can't prove they sent it.
Yes, if you charge people for allowing their systems to be abused, you are
liable as long as there are tool easily available to remedy the situation.
You can't fine/charge someone for being ill, but you can if they are
willfully negligent. I mean, if your phone could be used to make long
distance calls without your consent, you'd likely be required to pay for them
anyway.
So, before worrying about paying to send, it makes more sense to me to
implement proving who the sender is first. This leads to identifying "bad
senders" first, which can be used to determine if they are actual spammers
are victims, and if victims, to get their systems cleaned up, and if they
persist in not cleaning up, then in getting them booted from the ISP (or SMTP
provider if a business, etc.), blacklisted and/or turned over to authorities
as a provable spammer.
In real life, Grandma would refuse to pay the bill, the ISP would block
her access to their forwarding MTA, and Grandma would get a Hotmail
account. I don't know what would happen with that, but I doubt if the
supreme court would be involved at any point.
You might reasonably retort that the telephone company does sue for
telephone charges, even when there is a question of who made the calls.
But the telephone company practices were developed when it had a monopoly,
and didn't have to worry about losing the customer. The ISP still wants
the $40/month for internet access, so it will just set a credit limit and
eat the small losses.
Daniel Feenberg
David
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), (continued)
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), Seth
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), jjohnson
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), der Mouse
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), David Nicol
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), David Wall
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops),
Daniel Feenberg <=
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), der Mouse
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), Rich Kulawiec
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), David Nicol
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), Rich Kulawiec
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), der Mouse
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), Seth
- Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops), David Wall
|
|
|