g'day,
"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
...
Which is precisely why I say that the solution to spam is to charge for
email. It avoids the whole question of defining what is and is not spam.
More specifically, change the email protocol so that when email arrives from
an entity which is not on the "email from these entities is free" list, the
email is rejected unless is accompanied by a payment for $X (where X is set
by a knob on the machine).
You probably know this already, but for those who don't, Brad Templeton
proposed this scheme a while ago, based upon am micropayments model and
called it "estamps". See:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/estamps.html
He's also got a summary page on the topic of spam at:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/
He's since repudiated the idea, but it's been taken up and worked on in
the context of the hashcash system, which seeks to impose a measureable
computation cost on the sender in lieu of processing a micropayment.
Although Brad himself has repudiated the idea, I believe that the
general approach of automating the accounting and imposition of cost (as
is done in Hashcash) shows some promise, but what I actually think we
need is an automatic way to extend trust and build trust relationships.
Paul Vixie alluded to a "trusted-introducer model similar in concept to
pgp but more market-ready" a couple of postings ago, which I actually
think is the way to go.
So, okay, this discussion needs to move off the ietf general list, but
again I agree with Paul. Where is the direction about where we should be
heading with this?
- peterd
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch pdeutsch(_at_)gydig(_dot_)com
Gydig Software
"Bungle..."
"That's an 'i', you idiot..."
"Oh, right. 'Bingle..."
- Red versus Blue...
---------------------------------------------------------------------