North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Sat May 04 15:12:43 2002

> <trollishly>
> 
> What do you guess for the amortized cost/spam?
> 
> </trollishly>

a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
theft, no matter how microscopic the payment might be.  "we all know what
(they) are, now we're just arguing about the price."

> I do find it amusing that nobody responded to my more relevant and
> intended thrust, about how putting a 'sender pays receiver for email'
> could cause a variety of new abuses of the email system.

on the one hand, you're right that any micropayment system would have
to be very carefully thought out and even more carefully implemented,
lest it open the door to many and varied forms of microabuse.

on the other hand, that doesn't disprove the case, since even in your
example it would merely cause people to become a LOT more careful about
they mail they sent.  that CAN'T be a bad thing.

bill washburn's XNS effort, while nowhere near ready for critical review,
shows some of the throught that needs to occur to make micropayments not
be a bad deal for one or both parties.  www.xns.org has an overview and
www.onename.com goes so far as to say

	With an OneName solution, you control and manage all relevant
        identity data, with no need to involve a third party in your
        business relationships. You can customize authentication and
        permission structures for every business relationship and automate
        specific types of data exchange, both within and across the
        corporate firewall. These same permission structures provide an
        easy way for customers to provide consent for the usage of their
        personal data.

note that i'm not advocating the approach, but rather, holding it up as
one example of how personal messaging will have to work at "full scale."