Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions

On Dec 28 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
> 
> On December 28, 2004 at 16:58 laird@lbreyer.com (Laird Breyer) wrote:
>  > I believe my criticism is valid, but if I am looking at things too
>  > simplistically, please enlighten me: The charging model is intended to 
>  > push the problem from the ISPs to the end users. End users who don't
>  > do their bit to fix the spam problem are priced out of the network.
> 
> I think it's trying to create a widespread economic motivation to fix
> the problem.
> 
> No ISP would want to try to crowbar money out of people because a
> virus ran up their bill (well, maybe some would, but no reasonable
> ISP...)
> 
> But introducing economics does change the landscape.

I'll agree with you on the changing landscape. I really don't think I can
discuss meaningfully whether that change will achieve a reduction of
spam volume on the networks. So I'll bow out on this topic for now and 
lurk.

> 
> A lot of the problem with spam at this point is cost-shifting, the
> whole mess is a big hot potato.

Nice analysis.

>  > 
>  > I imagine that the same hackers who gave us P2P will find a way to
>  > send email transparently, without necessarily using the existing email
>  > network. Then we'll have two email networks, a free one and a metered one.
> 
> It'd be such a tiny proportion of the mail no one would care.
> 
> This is another example of "it wouldn't be absolutely perfect so
> therefore it's fatally flawed" reasoning.
> 
> C'mon. 99% of the email would still be between people who have barely
> made their Outlook function, not 3l33t h4x0rz.
> 

I used the P2P word for a reason. Would you say that P2P is used by
such a tiny proportion of users that no one cares? 

We (as in the world, well the _other_ world ;-) already have efficient
world wide distribution systems for software, we have skilled people
who write software for free just to spite those who say it can't be
done, and the big free projects like Mozilla etc. are making much
progress in producing friendly software which 99% of connected people can use.

I don't think we can discount things such as plugins for Outlook or
whatever else is popular which would make an alternative mail transport
seamless to the user. They'll just download a package which advertises
itself as "no more metered email!". 

BTW, I'm not suggesting that such an alternative would be better, more
reliable etc than metered email, nor that the alternative would take over
the world etc. But an alternative only needs to fracture the SMTP world
and then we've taken a step back ten years or more. 

-- 
Laird Breyer.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg