-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 12 August 2004 11:32 pm, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
wrote:
they
have basically
put a non-refundable bond up for $300 that they won't abuse
their domain.
Please don't call it a bond, because
1) if they do abuse, Verisign doesn't use the $300 to compensate/help the
victims 2) non-spammers don't get their $300 back at then end of the year
for good behaviour
It's not a bond. But it is like a bond in that they have to pay upfront.
You are assuming that $300 of successfull spamming wasn't done before it
was blacklisted.
The point is to raise the costs of spamming. If they have to pay $300 to
obtain a real domain name to spam with, then that is $300 more than before.
If we raise the costs, there is less incentive to spam. If we can raise the
cost to exceed the revenue, then no one will ever spam again unless they
are really stupid.
With both reputation and accreditation services, the spammers have to spend
money, time, or effort to get a positive rating. That is something they
didn't have to do before. Will it be enough to prevent spamming? Maybe not.
Will it raise the costs sufficiently that spamming will be significantly
reduced? Very likely.
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBHTTBBFeYcclU5Q0RAsKcAKCH3qw3a9cQuvYkknguX5MpSknNvACg50A9
WQXXJyQRiMWRhx7qIqbtTOs=
=l1CF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----