Subject: RE: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:09 -0800

> had bought e-stamps, your own roll of e-stamps would be useless.  Your
> friends would see how little you got out of the exercise, and somehow
> never get around to buying their own rolls of e-stamps...or signing up
> with Verisign for a PKI email non-spamming identity or any other
> proposal that starts "first you get everyone to ..."

Now that is an idea!

Actually there are people who would pay $500 or so for such a certificate
but they are big volume senders. The problem would then be to persuade the
spam filter writers to take note of the certificate. The cash value to the 
buyer would be getting legitimate email through spam filters.

I dont think that there is a market for a cert that costs 0.01 cent per 
message. C|Net sends out a billion emails a year so they would end up
paying us $100,000 a year. Possible... To do anything about spam the cost 
would have to be 1 cent or so, I don't see C|Net doing that.

If I thought microsopayments would be viable I would be pushing them. 
Guess who bought the Cybercash assets? 

Obligatory IP disclosure - certain uses of this technology may be covered
by IP owned by VeriSign or by others. This message does not grant any 
rights to use this technology.

		Phill

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:58:09 -0800

> One question I have for you is: would you be willing to try 
> an experiment with sender pays?

No. I beleive that any move to a per message charge is a regressive and
unnecessary change in the Internet infrastructure.

If you want to propose such a scheme I will be happy to tell you which
patents I believe that it infringes.

	Phill

---

From: Steve Schear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:25:18 -0800

>patents I believe that it infringes.

Yes, please do.  I'm in the sender-pays camp.  Although one can reasonably 
maintain that spam is a social phenomenon, the economic dimension is one 
which has heretofore not received attention in deployed systems.

steve