Subject: Re: [Asrg] More 'pay per' foolishness

From: "Hannigan, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:06:15 -0500

I'm not thinking about counting packets outside of any counting that isn't
already being done. I'm talking about refinements.

It wouldn't be terribly hard to generate an accounting record like a
star(/stop in RADIUS for mail traffic.

I don't think it would be terribly hard to then do a lookup in, say, an ss7
database to check if the service limit had been reached and then to start
the overage counter. 

Telcos/carriers/nsp/isp already do this. With IP.

The only way to then value the traffic and scale the product is to count
inter-carrier packets - which is already done for settlement peering in
voice and data/net application.

Convergence can be a wonderful thing if you open your mind and believe the
possibilities are within reach.

-M

-M

---
Martin Hannigan
[email-masked]
Verisign, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
CC: Hannigan, Martin <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thu Dec 30 09:53:51 2004
Subject: Re: [Asrg] More 'pay per' foolishness

>If anyone missed it, I'm not talking about "pay per" I'm talking
>about inter-carrier bit billing broken out by protocol (SMTP) that
>causes providers to know exactly what their SMTP costs are and they
>can react accordingly with rate plans that accomodate hamburgers,
>double cheesburgers, and Big Mac's with fries.

But counting the port 25 packets is only related in the most vague
sense to actual e-mail costs.  I don't know anyone (other than vendors
who want to be the gatekeeper) who thinks there's any merit in
charging for mail that isn't spam, and I don't know very many who
think there's any merit in charging for e-mail in general other than
as an indirect way to stop spam.

If you're going to count the port 25 packets, it seems to me that a
much cheaper and equally effective approach would be to forget about
money and let networks set hourly or daily ingress quotas for their
peers.  If someone on network A sends a huge blast of spam to network
B, they'll hit their daily limit at 12:05 AM, and no more mail over
that path until tomorrow.  Then network A has to deal with the
complaints from its own users that their mail is falling on the floor.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com

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

---

From: Jim Whitescarver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:47:05 -0500

It is unfair that a few network abusers consume much of the bandwidth.  
But we want profitable use of the network.  Those that use an obscene 
excess of our shared resources should pay.

My comments are more of the philosophical side, on how should spam be 
paid for in a free market.

I block IP addresses after just one spam.  I block groups of 256 IP 
addresses with 3 or more offending IP addresses.

I punish them to protect my systems from overload.  But it they would 
pay me, I be happy to unblock them.

It would be good, in principle, for those who used an excesses of our 
resources would pay those using less than their share. In the spirit of 
commercial television, the advertisers could pay for the whole system

We all have the power to block or unblock, but there is no standard for 
payment for unblocking.

Many advertisers now balking at email advertising may use it if they 
could be assured they will not be blocked or sued.  There is a social 
cost to spam, our time, our computing resources and networks.  
Advertising on the Internet saves money and resources.  An added cost of 
a penny for an add the recipient actually received, for example, would 
still be a small fraction of printing and postage costs.

What does it cost?  The only reasonable choice is free market value.  I 
am currently blocking over four million IP addresses from reaching about 
400 real email accounts.   I have no choice really, except to upgrade my 
email server.  If I were to open the flood gates, my server will become 
overloaded by spam filters and crash.  Everyone we get to this point if 
spam continues to grow exponentially.

I doubt many of the IP addresses I block are legitimately following the 
can spam requirements and should be blocked.  But some of them, and many 
other businesses wanting to reach our users pay to get theory message 
across.  To make the system scalable they must pay for the resources 
they utilize.

I could handle about four times as much email with about a $500 per 
month upgrade.  That come out to about 3/10 of a cent per added email.  
Your millage may vary, but unless these economics are provided for the 
system will fail.  Scalable economics will promote growth and 
stability.  We all have the power to block and unblock, and do so 
profitable for advertisers and networks collaboratively.  There should 
be a standard, but it will be the marketplace that decides ultimately.  
Some system like this must emerge so that our networks can sustain growth.

Jim