On Nov 20, 7:12pm, Barry Shein wrote:
}
} Well, spammers right now send on the order of a billion messages per
} day, that might even be per-each-spammer for the worst offenders.
}
} THEREFORE, the assumptions go, you wouldn't have to raise the cost
} very much, either entry cost or per message, to make what they do
} unprofitable.
Unfortunately, this is only half (maybe less than half) of the case
I think you need to make. It's not enough to point out that imposing
some kind of delivery cost would stick it to the nasty spammers.
You also have to demonstrate that it makes good financial sense for
those who will be issuing and verifying the stamps (or whatever the
means of inflicting the delivery cost may be) to re-engineer their
email system (and maybe other out-of-band technology) to support the
payment scheme.
Without that, you're left with something that can only be imposed by
fiat, like the digital TV broadcast conversion in the US.
} Why would someone like Amazon agree to be charged say $300K/year?
}
} They would if they believed it drastically lowered the spam, suddenly
} their email might get read instead of drowned out in the deluge.
That about sums up Goodmail's business proposition, except that they
leave lowering the spam to others and instead drastically raise the
visibility of Amazon's mail (in theory). Either way it's about not
getting drowned. Amazon has no reason to care whether the water goes
from neck-deep to ankle-deep, or they have a boat to float in, as long
as they're mostly above the water.
It's not the senders you need to convince. Recipients have to feel
that a sump pump is going to be more effective than a fleet of rubber
rafts.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg