RE: [Asrg] Economic methods for controlling spam (was [Yet anothe r] article on spam)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:20 PM
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: [Asrg] Economic methods for controlling spam (was 
> [Yet another] article on spam)
> 
> 
> At 06:13 AM 5/23/2003 +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote:
> 
> >However, with email we have the potential to do much better if we 
> >devise the proper economic model. Right now the spammers are 
> forcing us 
> >to spend additional money handling their spam. More machines for 
> >filtering. Lawyers to write more laws. Why can't we turn that around 
> >and spend money to offer better email services?
> [....]
> >We still need to filter email, but we should be using those 
> filtering 
> >cycles to enforce OUR interests on the advertisers.
> [....]
> >There are various anti-spam email systems out there, but so 
> far all of 
> >the ones I've looked at expect me to pay blackmail 
> "insurance" charges 
> >to get rid of the spam. This is a WRONG economic model, and 
> I will NOT 
> >be blackmailed.
> 
> Perhaps we can start a discussion about the economic models 
> of spam control 
> and various systems possible. Below is a quote from section 
> 1.7. of Dave 
> Crocker's draft on spam control mechanims 
>
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-01.txt)
, 
>we can start off discussion with this:

>-------snip-----
>Postal mail imposes a fee on the sender for each message that is sent. Such

>a fee makes the cost of sending significant, and proportional to the amount

>sent.  In contrast, current Internet mail is very nearly free to the 
>sender.  Hence there is interest in exploring "sender pays" email.
>
>One form of sender-pays is identical to postal stamping.  Another entails 
>"retribution" to the sender, taking the fee for their posting only if the 
>recipient indicates they were unhappy to receive it. For both models, it is

>not clear that it is possible to retroactively fit the necessary mechanisms

>to Internet mail. Its complete absence from the current service and the 
>existence of anonymous and free email services may provide too much 
>operational inertia.  It is also not clear who should receive the fees or 
>how they should be disbursed.
>-------snip-----

One such system was presented at the ASRG meeting at IETF 56. The system is
called SHRED:  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/slides/asrg-8.pdf. If
we are going to start a dicussion about cost-based systems, then we should
start we the thought that has been put into this proposal.

According to our taxonomy, these approaches can be considered a form of
consent token or a response of charging after spam detection depending on
the use.

One potential for such a system is within a consent-based communications
framework. For example, consider that some category of email is between
individuals and are based on some implicit or explicit consent. Another
category is mailing lists and newsletters based on explicit consent in the
form of opt-in. Another category may be bulk mail where consent can be
purchased as mentioned in Shannon Jacobs's email as "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." This is similar to other areas
of life where some subset of people are willing to pay for some amount of
your attention such as bulk postal email or other advertisments.

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