Subject: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays (was RE: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up )

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56:04 -0400

Mathew, it sounds like you are volunteering to lead some work into the
"sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas? Is what
you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights or SHRED or is
it a different approach?

IBM's Selling Interrupt Rights:
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf

Balachander Krishamurthy's SHRED:
http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/shred-ietf56-talk.pdf

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mathew [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up 
> 
> It seems to me that those of us who think "sender pays" is necessary 
> could usefully set up a separate list to come up with 
> requirements, and 
> a proposed implementation model, which could then be brought 
> back here 
> for the inevitable nit-picking.

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

---

From: mathew <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:19:10 -0400

On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 09:56 AM, Paul Judge wrote:
> "sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas?

Yes, but they're in my head at the moment.

>  Is what you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights 
> or SHRED or is it a different approach?
[...]
> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf

My thought is that something similar to "Selling Interrupt Rights" is 
probably what's needed, but I think it's premature to say that that's 
exactly right in all details.

I think what I'd like to do is try and get some agreement on 
requirements. For instance, *I* think a fairly basic requirement should 
be that the user be allowed to set the interrupt price at zero, so if 
people want to keep on allowing the entire world to send them e-mail 
for free, they can do so--nobody would be forced to adopt the new 
system.

On the other hand, I don't see the proposed "escrow" mechanism as being 
very worthwhile, for social reasons: it becomes a source of potential 
friction between sender and recipient. If the recipient decides whether 
to deduct the fee after receiving the e-mail, the sender is liable to 
take it as a personal slight. Better to always deduct the fee, which 
will also act as a form of market pressure to keep fees low.  But hey, 
I could be convinced otherwise.

Canonical example: You'd like to discourage your mother from sending 
you those endlessly-forwarded chain letters and heartwarming e-mails. 
If you set an interrupt price of a nickel, she might stop and think 
before pushing the send button ten times a day. But if you have to push 
a button to "punish" her and take the nickel, are you really going to 
do it?

So anyway, should I set up a mailing list for the discussion?

mathew

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:36:03 -0400

At 06:19 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, mathew wrote:

>>  Is what you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights or 
>> SHRED or is it a different approach?
>[...]
>I think what I'd like to do is try and get some agreement on requirements. 
>For instance, *I* think a fairly basic requirement should be that the user 
>be allowed to set the interrupt price at zero, so if people want to keep 
>on allowing the entire world to send them e-mail for free, they can do 
>so--nobody would be forced to adopt the new system.

Keep in mind the existing requirements document, the technical 
considerations document and the consent framework. Especially within the 
consent framework, consent tokens could be e-postage tokens.

>.....

IMHO, this list is pretty good for now unless the traffic gets out of hand 
again.

Yakov

---

From: david nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2003 16:33:24 -0500

Hello ASRG mailing list

I've been working on this for several years and the implementation
is going through beta testing.

Sign up at http://www.pay2send.com/newalias.html to have
a working @pay2send.com forwarding address.  Filtering will
start happen Real Soon Now. (like before dawn tomorrow.)  

All signed-up recipients will receive announcements.

Sender identity (an important aspect of Sender Pays) is
keyed on RAPNAP (Return Address, Network Address Pair) rather
than simply RA or insisting on public keys.  (A public-key based
sender verification would be easy to add, but the minimal Release 1
uses RAPNAP.)

RAPNAP is verified using the RAPNAP database, a centralized C-R system.

A client for the pay2send RAPNAP database is available on CPAN.

In addition to RAPNAP, to avoid C-R handshakes for users of
OMX compliant e-mail systems, the rapnap check system checks
for the existence of omx.example.com when it is analyzing mail
with an example.com RA.  When omx.example.com exists and the
PNA is listed as one of (the first seven) A-records, the message
is assumed to be legitimate.

When there are seven or more records in omx.example.com, the
system checks d.c.b.a.omx.example.com for any a.b.c.d PNA,
and if it exists and is not 0.0.0.0, the C-R handshake is
avoided.

The OMX proposal has been discussed on the DJBDNS mailing list;
this message is the first mention of it in an IETF forum.

Ideally, the RAPNAP database will be DNS based and live
at

	username.at.example.com.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int

and, to provide some data to include in the CR messages

	sl.subject.line.ta.target.address.ra.username.at.example.com.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int

but we might run into A record length limitations; or truncate
accordingly.

and
	mailinglistid.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int

instead of being a clunky web service.

David Nicol

see also

http://www.pay2send.com/sender_identity.txt

Looks like I never set up a pay2send discussion mailing list --
I will be happy to maintain a simple developer's mailing list
for people who wish to contribute their sweat to the pay2send project:
e-mail me personally including links to your resume and how much
time you have to put in.
THE PAY2SEND PROJECT IS A PROFIT-MOTIVATED COMMERCIAL PROJECT
AND I AM TRACKING EQUITY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS LATER REIMBURSEMENT.

-- 
David Nicol, independent consultant, contractor, and food service worker
Imagine the first ice cream in Calcutta:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078686740X/tipjartransactioA/