On November 29, 2008 at 12:50 sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com (Seth) wrote:
I think spammers will steal resources to continue sending spam at the
expense of other people.
Just like they do now.
But if your MTA won't accept the email because they don't have valid
"postage" then it won't do them (the spammers) much good.
But without pricing all you really have is bickering about what is
meant by "unsolicited" or "legit" etc.
And with pricing you have to ensure that the "right" people pay it.
Why? Do you find this a problem with paper mail?
There are certainly some classes of "stamps", and some enforcement is
involved to prevent, e.g., for-profits from using non-profit rates,
actually there are quite a few details, but certainly as a recipient
you don't worry about all this much, you just get some mail and read
some of it, throw the rest away, etc.
One major difference is that the "free" email system provides no
effective economic infrastructure for enforcement of any sort.
And if you could do that, you wouldn't need pricing.
Well, we don't need "that", i.e., judging who is worthy of sending
beyond their paying the freight, so that's a straw man.
How can you say this when I have typed in a perfectly reasonable model
perhaps a dozen times even just in the past several days?
How does your model enforce that spammers pay (and not the owners of
zombied machines)?
Spammers need to send a lot more email than zombied machines would
normally be allocated by default.
If we want to get creative "stamps" on the internet could also have a
"rate" charge.
That is, we'll give you 1,000 msgs/day free but only if your rate
never exceeds 100/second for so many seconds (I'll save you the math,
there are 86,400 seconds in a day, so 1,000/day requires 86.4/second.)
Otherwise we either shut you off or raise the rate (your choice,
choose one checkbox please.)
Spammers can't live with rate-limiting either tho most mortals can,
particularly if it's numbers like so-many msgs per second.
etc.
That could work in a typical zombie situation where the infected host
is owned by an end-user and port 25 outbound is blocked so everything
has to go through the ISP's MTA/MSA.
Nothing I have ever said, nor believe, involves recipients deciding
who to charge or not charge.
So who does get to decide?
Well, algorithms.
An ISP or corporation might, if the system were effective, choose to
not accept any email without proper "postage".
In other schemes this decision might be left to the recipient's
machine tho at some point we're quibbling semantics, that is, the
recipient's machine hosts the MTA, etc, they're their own ISP/corp.
In a scheme where it's up to your MTA you could choose to accept all
of it, ignore the postage, just like you could shut off every spam
filter if you like.
Anyhow, the point is that you make it sound like we get this added
burdensome burden of deciding which mail to accept in this scheme.
I say, as far as the scheme is concerned, the only question is "valid
postage? Yes/NO".
Of course you could filter further at any point you control.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg