Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 09:18 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
>   That is, would the possible centralization of the administration of
> $$ (i.e. trust verification) be less problematic to the recipient than
> spam?  I could see people deciding that receiving ~100 spams/week is a
> reasonable trade-off for preventing a third party from having access
> to your email messages, or habits.

That's why it's important to design the protocols correctly.

It's perfectly possible to implement digital cash systems such that the 
"bank" doesn't get to see the e-mail, the sender and recipient can stay 
anonymous to each other, yet the recipient can be confident that his 
account was credited with the appropriate cash sum.

There's also no reason why it would be necessary to have a centralized 
system. You could have a number of administration entities, just like 
you do for DNS etc.

I've been thinking for a while that a bunch of people on this list, 
myself included, are pretty much convinced that the "use as much 
resources and as much of people's attention as you like, for free" 
model is fundamentally broken, and that sender-pays will be necessary.

It seems to me that those of us who think "sender pays" is necessary 
could usefully set up a separate list to come up with requirements, and 
a proposed implementation model, which could then be brought back here 
for the inevitable nit-picking.

It also seems clear to me that even if the majority think that "sender 
pays" won't work, that's no reason why it need be killed. Unlike many 
other solutions, it can quite happily "compete" with free e-mail and 
live or die by whether it works in the real world; it doesn't need 
universal adoption to be useful.

mathew

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