Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch

From: Madscientist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:20:07 -0400

At 06:40 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>

<snip>

> > Foolish me I thought we were here to propose CHANGES which might
> > ameliorate the spam problem.
>
>I think switching to sender pays is impossible, even if it were
>desirable or practical with some other history.  Except in the
>perverted cases where big advertisers pay big sellers of "eyes,"
>there are insurmountable practical problems in authorization,
>authentication, and general accounting.  Sender pays for email
>makes just as much sense as sender-pays-per-IP-packet, which about
>15 years after it was first pushed, makes even less sense.
>(Yes, I've heard of peering fees and approximations to "settlements".)

<snip>

> > You're just advocating for receiver pays.
> > Which is your right.
> > But just so we're all clear.
>
>Receiver pays is what we have.  It's not perfect, but until you raise
>the cost of email to at least the cost of U.S.P.S. junk mail, it's
>the only possible system.

I have to strongly agree with Vernon here ... but I might paint Receiver 
pays in a stronger light. I feel it is absolutely vital that we keep the 
economic model in the hands of the receiver. What is lacking currently is 
the technological leverage for them to control also what they receive... 
but that is far from impossible, it just hasn't been done yet.

When the receiver pays they _can_ have control over what they receive. If 
the sender pays then we will all be "watching television" because the 
sender will have complete control over everything that is available to be 
seen. Only those with deep pockets and the right connections (political and 
otherwise) will be able to present their "ideas" if the sender pays. This 
is very, very bad. The whole benefit of the Internet is that it lowers the 
barrier to the free flow of ideas. It's already well proven that the 
current economic model can easily cover the costs of infrastructure. In 
fact the costs are truly low enough that the Internet can be made available 
to nearly everyone. This is good and can be improved.

If the economic model is shifted then prices will be increased to the level 
of the highest bidder raising a barrier that will make it nearly impossible 
for any other content to make it onto the net. In that model, no matter 
what you are looking for, you will only find what big money wants you to see.

We've got to fix the technical problems with network abuse using technical, 
non-centralized means, and we've got to get that work done BEFORE big 
business and government find enough leverage to squash the best benefits of 
the Internet. To me, that danger is the worst problem presented by spam.

Spam is reaching (has reached) levels where there is a demand for a 
solution which means there is money and political favor to be had by anyone 
with the ability to force "their particular solution". If we don't short 
circuit this problem before that happens then we might as well say goodbye 
to any of the potential benefits of the Internet, sit back, and watch it 
turn into nothing more than another advertising medium in the absolute 
control of the highest bidder and the political whims of the day. (That 
would be ironic don't you think? - if the "solution" to the spam (email 
advertising) problem squashed everything except advertising in the end?)

I suggest we remain focused on solving the problem of control and the 
suppression of abuse. This can be done by technical means in a 
decentralized fashion, and we'd better get on with it.

+ adjustments and enhancements to open protocols and standards.
+ distributed, dynamic threat detection and response mechanisms.
+ intelligent controls that allow recipients to define the content they want.
+ adaptive propagation mechanisms to enhance efficiency.
...

(If you don't know what I mean by these things please ask - I'm trying not 
to write a book in this note...)

If the infrastructure of the Internet disconnects abusers, and the 
definition of abuse is controlled by the recipients, then the economics 
will be well defined for the spammer: If you abuse this network you will be 
removed from it and _no amount_ of money will get your messages to 
unwilling recipients. It will also be well defined for the provider: 
Implement these protocols or lose customers to those who do.

If we make the mechanisms for this open and available (not protected IP but 
open standards) then they will proliferate _because_ of the spam problem 
and will become a natural suppressive force against it. Those who do not 
implement the protocols will be inundated with abuse... those that do 
implement them will find great benefit... there will be no stopping a 
solution like this.

Now lets go build it and stop focusing on greed.
(Be careful what you wish for you might get it!)

_M

Pete McNeil (madscientist)
President, MicroNeil Research Corporation.
Chief SortMonster, www.sortmonster.com.

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