[Asrg] Re: Pay-for-attention (Was Re: article on spam)
mathew <meta@pobox.com> Mon, 26 May 2003 03:27 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19162 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:27:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4Q3QuX21397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:26:56 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4Q3QuB21394 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:26:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19158; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19K8bg-0002sa-00; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:25:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19K8bg-0002sX-00; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:25:04 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4Q3M7B21252; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:22:07 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4Q3LfB21230 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:21:41 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19113 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19K8Wc-0002rU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:19:50 -0400
Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com ([204.127.202.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19K8Wb-0002rK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 25 May 2003 23:19:49 -0400
Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003052603204500100enpice>; Mon, 26 May 2003 03:20:45 +0000
X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: mathew <meta@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <004b01c320a7$06f0d6a0$0301a8c0@nv6881>
To: asrg@ietf.org
X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>.
X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com
Message-Id: <0963A8EF-8F29-11D7-A0DD-00039380F1B6@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Asrg] Re: Pay-for-attention (Was Re: article on spam)
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 23:20:44 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 17:13 US/Eastern, Shannon Jacobs wrote: > If you know of an anti-spam email system that will block any > advertising > UNLESS the advertisers pay MY price for MY time, then please tell me > about > it. I'll sign up and consider my spam problem solved. Yes, this strikes me as exactly the right model. People I know get to mail me for free. Everyone else has to pay a fee *I* set if they want to contact me. I'll call it "postage" in the discussion below, for want of a better word. People sending mail would sign up with a postage provider. There could be many of these, just like there are many online banks and payment systems. I imagine that people like PayPal would add Internet postage as a part of their system, in fact. The system receiving mail for me would check to see if the person's in my address book. If not, it would check for postage--that is, it would check my account to see that the appropriate amount had been credited. No postage, and either my mail server bounces it, or passes it through with a flag so I can choose what to do. [Maybe valid postage means they get added to my address book, so they only have to pay once.] From the sender end, the way it would work is that a Postage Requirements Server would be resolved, much the same way as an MX is resolved, based on my e-mail address. Their client would contact the Postage Requirements Server, tell it their e-mail address, and it would reply with how much postage I want from them before I'll accept their mail. They'd then make a decision whether to use their postage provider to send me the money along with the e-mail, or not. Once their system confirmed that postage had been sent, they'd send the actual e-mail with an appropriate header indicating postage was paid. What's in it for the end user? Well, apart from going a long way towards solving the spam problem, most people could probably fund their occasional need for outgoing postage from the proceeds of incoming junk mail, and still make a profit. What's in it for the people deploying it? Money! Postage providers (sending and receiving) could charge a penny on every piece of non-zero digital postage. These fees would be taken into account when the sender's client contacted the Postage Requirements Server. Transaction charges for the real-world transfer of the money would be minimized by rolling up the transactions at the end of each month, just like Amazon rolls up my tip jar transactions into one deposit, Paypal rolls up my transactions into one bank credit or debit, the Apple Music Store rolls up my track purchases into one bill, and so on. I imagine ICANN or some such organization would keep a limit on the number of postage providers, enough to allow competition and keep rates low, but not so many that the market would be fragmented and transaction costs make it unprofitable. As long as we had a list of "official" postage providers you wouldn't need any fancy cryptography; just SSL connections. Sender client contacts postage provider, gives it details of my account and amount to send. My mail client contacts my provider, checks amounts received and e-mail addresses or message IDs to whitelist. The providers would need to know about each other, and agree to interoperate, much like domain registries do. Another nice feature would be zero cost postage for friends. That would prevent spammers from being able to break through by sending e-mail pretending to be from someone I know, as my system would check for a zero-cost stamp and only allow through the right message IDs, yet at the same time my friends wouldn't have to pay money to e-mail me. As far as I can see, something like this can be built using technology available today. Although eventually client support would be added, initially it could be done using a web interface to your postage provider to pay to get you added to my address book, on the "pay once" model. The receiving server needs to know enough HTTP and SSL to do the equivalent of a PayPal account query, but that's about it. In fact, I'm rather surprised nobody has built something like this already. It seems pretty obvious. Maybe there's some massive flaw I'm missing, hence this e-mail. I'm sure if anyone can nit-pick the idea to death, it's the people on this list... mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Chui Tey
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Shannon Jacobs
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Kee Hinckley
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Shannon Jacobs
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam John Fenley
- Re: [Asrg] [Yet another] article on spam Shannon Jacobs
- [Asrg] Economic methods for controlling spam (was… Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Kee Hinckley
- Re: [Asrg] Shannon Jacob's article on spam Kee Hinckley
- [Asrg] Re: Pay-for-attention (Was Re: article on … mathew
- [Asrg] Re: Pay-for-attention (Was Re: article on … Kee Hinckley
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Pay-for-attention (Was Re: article… Mitch Wagner