On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:02:41 -0500, Howard Lee Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:26:41 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Entire? > >Yes. Entire. Without cost-shifting, there would be zero spam. At >the very worst, there might still be a bulk-mail problem similar to >what we have with snailmail -- but without the cost-shifting, I would >no longer care. Without the cost-shifting, "remove" lists would be >meaningful, because nobody would want to pay to send you stuff you >don't want. There is another problem, however - and that is the distribution of revenue from e-postage. Do ISP's or users bear the majority of the per-message cost? Users will generally argue that it's their time, their aggravation, thus they bear the larger share and should receive the larger portion. ISPs, on the other hand, have larger infrastructure and overhead concerns, and will stake their claim based on those needs - perhaps cloaking them in "we receive your spam postage, you get a discount on your ISP bill" agreements. Ted _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
