--On Thursday, December 03, 2015 13:20 -0800 Brandon Long
/me looks at the number of messages we send a day, multiples
by 10 cents, laughs
/me looks at the amount of money an ad supported service earns
per user, looks at per message costs of 10 cents, laughs
Right. I agree that the economics are unlikely to work in
practice, even if one titrated the amounts. I tried to say that
in a more general way.
Regardless of any other complication, charging enough to
matter to bad senders but not enough to deter real senders...
this whole thing is a non-starter.
As for equating DMARC (which is an anti-spoofing /
anti-phishing proposal, not an anti-spam proposal) with this,
I don't even...
I didn't intend to "equate" them and certainly understand the
distinction. DMARC was mentioned only because it provides a
fairly recent example of a method based on assumptions of proof
of authorization to send mail from a particular address or
domain whose deployment caused disruptions.
Personally, I don't believe this is worth pursuing even to the
extent of more traffic to explain why it is a bad idea. There
are a lot of reasons why a general fee-for-mail (especially a
fee that, as you point out, is small enough to not provide any
deterrent) is not going to work and a lot of independent reasons
(a few of them actually hinted at in Jacob's note) why it would
be likely to be impossible to deploy in practice.
I was objecting almost exclusively to the style in which the
proposal was dismissed, independent of whether it is a good idea
or even one that should be taken seriously.
ietf-smtp mailing list