The correct solution is to enforce masking techniques so we as users can screen our email, much like phone calls via caller ID, which also needs work to prevent making a phone number.
Charging the user is like the Internet Taxation Issue, it hurts one of the only semi viable markets in our deplorable economy. Making the end user have restrictions and costs due to our inability to control a problem internally, shows how quick we as a society are willing to hand over our rights to a group, such as Homeland Security of a commercial unit, so that we can brush an issue under the rug!! A good working solution requires understanding the issues, architectural and conceptual design and development resulting from appropriate research, alpha/beta implementation, testing and cooperative implementation planning, as well as appropriate communication to users and training.
I thought IETF was founded on the idea of working through issues, not on being reactionary!
Rebecca L. Page Teris Consulting Group Saline, MI 734-944-1177 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S Woodside wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 08:51 PM, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Which is precisely why I say that the solution to spam is to charge for email. It avoids the whole question of defining what is and is not spam.
More specifically, change the email protocol so that when email arrives from
an entity which is not on the "email from these entities is free" list, the
email is rejected unless is accompanied by a payment for $X (where X is set
by a knob on the machine).
This would be unfortunate for people who do not have a lot of money. Even if the payment were miniscule, 0.01$ or whatever, the payment system might require a bank account, or a credit card, etc., to participate in. That would effectively block out a substantial percentage of the earth's population, people who use community centres, libraries, schools, etc. for free access or internet cafes for cheap occasional access.
simon
-- www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
