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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gydig Software
"Bungle..."
"That's an 'i', you idiot..."
"Oh, right. 'Bingle..."
- Red versus Blue...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
