Re: requiring payment (was spam)

Hello Dave Morris ---

It would be helpful if you would explain how this payment system of 
yours might actually work in real life.

Perhaps like TELEX worked before it died, with settlements between 
the first posing ISP to the last receiving ISP, with "settlement" 
payments spread across all ISPs in between.

Of course this leads to bilateral agreements among al the thousands of 
ISPs, and collective agreements among the mass of global ISPs.

Now, consider the cost of such arrangements, to cover the frictional 
costs of just being in business, plus the required profit margins that
accrue to any such massive payment shuffling.

Everyone here advocating payments do not seem to understand the overhead costs 
of collecting and distributing the money. 

Be careful of what you wish for! -- You just might get it!

Cheers...\Stef

> Simon,
>
> The proposals haven't been to eliminate free email, only to provide an
> alternative which folks can require be used to send them email if they
> haven't established a free relationship with the sender.
>
> In the USA today, it costs $.37 to send a physical mail. I don't think it
> unreasonable for someone sending me mail to pay a similar fee and
> conversely for me to pay such a fee for each of my posts to the IETF list,
> even though I would expect the list to use a free channel to distribute
> the result.
>
> I don't believe there is any right to free mail or email service so I
> don't see a reason to be overly concerned that a user of a community
> computer can't send free email. In addition to the free email channel
> which would have to continue to exist, providers of 'no charge' email
> services such as the bottom end Yahoo service could offer some number of
> free stamps per month combined with credits I suggested for receiveing
> postage paid mail, folks with marginal economic situations should be able
> to participate in email.
>
> Dave Morris
>
> On Wed, 28 May 2003, S Woodside wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 08:51  PM, 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 $X (where X
> > > is set
> > > by a knob on the machine).
> > This would be unfortunate for people who do not have a lot of money.
> > Even if the payment were miniscule, 0.01$ or whatever, the payment
> > system might require a bank account, or a credit card, etc., to
> > participate in. That would effectively block out a substantial
> > percentage of the earth's population, people who use community centres,
> > libraries, schools, etc. for free access or internet cafes for cheap
> > occasional access.
> >
> > simon
> >
> > --
> > www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message was passed through 
> > ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which is a 
> > sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. 
> > Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.