RE: [Asrg] E-postage/hashcash - the future

["Chris" <asrg at rebel.com.au>]

>
> Since then I now find I am being attacked and insulted for just
> having that
> opinion.
>
> I will just go back to lurking I think as some of you are just not
> interested in any new discussion.
>

You are right, some people cannot stand having their views challenged

The internet is thought of as a level playing field. where the mighty and
the minor can stand shoulder to shoulder
e-postage delivers the internet back to the mighty (read rich) as you have
so rightly pointed out.

We must stop the abuse of e-mail by spammers without delivering what the
large corporations want.

Which is total control.

Those who are in the employ of large corporations will always rigorously
decry any suggestion that deviates from that plan

Regards
Chris



> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> john.oppler@gm.com
> Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 1:59 PM
> To: asrg@ietf.org; asrg-admin@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] E-postage/hashcash - the future
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of clarification as my original message seems to have
> been misinterpreted.
>
> All I was saying was that _if_ a payment system of any kind was introduced
> it would certainly stop
> the spam that is a plague today.  What I warned was that if this is the
> course that is followed then a new scourge
> would quickly follow.  That scourge would be similar to the junk
> paper mail
> we now receive, sent by legitimate businesses
>
> That's all my initial message concerned.
>
> Since then I now find I am being attacked and insulted for just
> having that
> opinion.
>
> I will just go back to lurking I think as some of you are just not
> interested in any new discussion.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>In any case, I do see your point, but was just trying to express my
> > >>opinion as to what I think will happen if email is chargeable
> >
> > >It's about as useful as expressing an opinion as to what will happen
> when
> > >cars run on water.
> >
> >Well, thank you for suggesting my opinion was useless
>
> Those are your words, not mine.
>
> > >You have to look at the obstacles to making it happen.  Thinking about
> how
> > >nice it will be "when it happens" is a waste of time if it ain't never
> > >gonna happen.
> >
> >I don't _have_ to do anything thank you!
> >
> >I certainly was not suggesting a way to make the situation better,
>
> Well, the topic of this mailing list is to RESEARCH ANTI-SPAM
> solutions.  If you aren't going to suggest ways to make the situation
> better, perhaps there are other lists that would be better places for your
> musings.
>
> >I fully admit that, I simply I posted my opinion, which is based on what
> >_I_  think will happen next, regardless of which pay ' system'
> you plan to
> >introduce.
>
> I don't plan to introduce any "pay system" because I don't think they will
> be adopted enough to become successful.  These proposals are too
> cumbersome
>
> and rely on centralized systems.  We will never get widespread adoption
> when decentralized and simple solutions are available.
>
> For instance, the only reason iTunes is successful instead of Napster is
> because most of the content on Napster is/was protected by copyright, one
> can't legally exchange copyright protected songs or software via
> Napster.  Take away the legal restrictions, and the Napster model is
> clearly superior to the iTunes model which is why the free market created
> Napster when the RIAA refused to create a system for delivering songs over
> the Internet.  Instead of songs we have messages, and you see why people
> want a free system to exchange messages.
>
> > >The first obstacle to making it happen is getting the first 1/2 of the
> mail
> > >clients/servers on the 'net to sign-on to whatever plan we propose and
> > >implementing the necessary changes first, before there is any hope of
> > >payoff.  The second obstacle is getting end users to agree to cut-off
> the
> > >last 1/2 of the mail clients/servers on the 'net (including aunt Sally
> with
> > >her old win95 box that can't be upgraded to a newer message
> system) once
> > >"critical mass" has been achieved, to force all the older
> clients/servers
> > >to upgrade or die so that the new system has 100% of the
> message traffic
> on
> > >the 'net.  Both of these are *big* obstacles, and adding
> ePostage ON TOP
> OF
> > >THIS makes it considerably harder because we add a complicated payment
> > >scheme on top of a complicated system upgrade.
> >
> >The only way to stop spam is at the delivery point.
>
> If 100% of the spam that was injected into the system got 99% of
> the way to
>
> the recipient and then was dropped on the floor, it would still stop 100%
> of the spam.  Yes, this is more *costly* than stopping it at the delivery
> point, but it is still EFFECTIVE.  You can't ignore other solutions just
> because they aren't your preferred solution.
>
> This is why filtering is one model that is presently economically
> effective, people are paying Brightmail and Postini etc. to
> filter out spam
>
> and deliver the non-spam.
>
> >The certificates and/or payment schemes need to be a ISP
> >level, not at the user level.  The user should not be involved at all.
>
> That is but one solution, but by no means the only solution.  It might be
> the best solution, or the worst solution.  You have to look at
> the problems
>
> with implementing your proposed solution, and with the
> alternatives, before
>
> you can tell if this is the best solution and if it's likely to succeed.
>
> >In my opinion this is an industry problem, not a
> >problem than needs any action by the user.
>
> You are aware that most spam today is being sent by "the user"
> right?  (Trojan-infected zombie computers on broadband.)
>
> > >If it were easy it would have happened already by now.  And we
> would all
> be
> > >driving cars powered by water.
> >
> >Please, please, please stop using cheesy analogies.  There are already
> cars
> >that use water for fuel.  The reason they are not released for
> the general
>
> >public
> >may not be obvious to you.
>
> If it were easy, and cheap, they would be out there.  The fact that they
> aren't means that it isn't easy and cheap.
>
> The spam problem is a difficult one to solve.  I've been actively fighting
> it for 7 years now, and I've seen the problems we have had with getting
> much simpler solutions put into place:
>
> 1)  Open relays still exist, open proxies followed and are abundant.
> 2)  Pink contracts were frequently written to sell to spammers, now they
> simply get IP offshore and the networks sell international lines to the
> offshore networks, having a "hands off" method of continuing to get the
> revenue.
> 3)  UDP-type action against networks that sell to spammers has been
> ineffective because too many really large networks are selling with the
> above "hands off" methods.
> 4)  DDoSs and lawsuits against BL sites.
> 5)  Domain registrars sell domains to spammers, DNS providers sell DNS
> services, offshore hosts host the spamvertized sites, etc.
> 6)  Trojans trick end users into installing zombie software so
> spammers can
>
> spam from millions of end user locations.
> 7)  Etc.
>
> Anti-spam forces have tried one by one to stop each of these problems as
> they developed, without much success.  Numerous proposed solutions for
> fixing many of these prior problems were suggested, all MUCH simpler to
> implement than the ePostage scheme, yet they were not widely adopted or
> implemented and all of these problems continue today.
>
> BTW, I have a Millicent coin in my drawer from ~1996 when Digital
> Equipment
>
> Corp (DEC, remember them?  They created AltaVista...) thought that
> micropayments would be the way everyone would pay for web content.
>
> <
> http://seminars.seyboldreports.com/1997_san_francisco/EditorsAnaly
sis/IP020312.HTM
>

Do you see anyone paying for web content today?  How much have you paid in
micropayments for content today?  This week?  This month?  This year?  How
much has your ISP paid on your behalf and then bundled the charge into your

ISP bill?  Zero, zip, zilch, nothing, nada, not one single red cent?  Then
why do you suddenly think that a payment system for email will be adopted
when one for web content (which cost billions of dollars to produce) hasn't

been adopted?

Come up with a convincing argument for why the entire Internet should and
will adopt a complicated ePostage payment system to replace today's present

simple and free email system when we can't even get widespread adoption of
a free existing system that produces an end-to-end audit trail
(authenticated SMTP between client and server and between all servers) of
all email messages thru the net.

jc

p.s.  please don't send me cc's of your replies.  reply to me, or to the
list, as you prefer.  But not both.





_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg