From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update
Message-ID: <20030926162519.Q19995@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <20030926152349.O19995@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <4b162e39c126d89cc7215ad5f3e79bd3@vitanuova.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <4b162e39c126d89cc7215ad5f3e79bd3@vitanuova.com>; from rog@vitanuova.com on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:55:06PM +0100
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:25:19 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4fc7c6e8-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:55:06PM +0100, rog@vitanuova.com wrote:
>
> fundamental problem:
>
> i like the fact that people i haven't previously contacted on the net
> can email me (but not spammers!).
>
Of course it's a problem: spammers have effectively eliminated this
option altogether.

> i like the fact that i can send email out of the blue to someone on
> the net (but i'm not a spammer!).
>
... and this one, reflexively.
>
> if everyone charged a small sum (e.g.  $.01) for each item of incoming
> mail from an address that's not on their whitelist, the spammers
> might find it hard going.

Charging requires authentication, unless we invent the equivalent
of postage stamps (that's an interesting idea in itself, as the
solution addresses both the issue of microcharging and a global
'net currency).

But once you can extort money out of someone, you can equally
successfully sue them for damages, however small, if they send you
unsolicited mail.  With some legislation in place to exaggerate
the financial impact, the effect will be the same as charging per
message.

++L