RE: [Asrg] Spam Ecomomics

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> James Lick
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:52 AM
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Ecomomics
> 
> 
> Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> 
> >End User (Ease of Use)
> >
> >The end user sees no change in the operation of email services
> >on the Internet. They do see a chance in the service offering 
> >where they are now allowed to send and receive X number of emails
> >per month based on the service plan that they have subscribed to
> >with their provider.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> I think your plan has potential, but once you have a cap in place you 
> can just make that a hard limit and don't have the charge anything at 
> all.   If the cap is generous enough to cover even a power user's 
> legitimate email volume, the end user should never even be 
> aware of it 
> unless they get 0wn3d.  At that point cutting off their 
> outgoing email 

A ceiling is certainly possible. Probably likely. The power
users can buy the next level of service if they like. 

> until they clean up, while annoying, is much more palatable 
> than getting 
> surprised with a fat bill at the end of the month.  You also risk 
> annoying consumer protection agencies and government officials by 
> charging consumers for fraudulent activity.  (Note that in the US 
> consumers don't need to pay more than $50 in fraudulent credit card 
> charges unless the credit card company can prove the credit 
> card holder 
> was negligent.)  In summary, I still don't see what benefit 
> the overage 
> charges have over just making it a hard limit.

Good point. Hard limit is doable and realistic. Hypothesizing, I'd say
that if you get blown out by being owned, you can buy a block or
something. Dunno. There's probably an easy "product manager" like
solution somewhere. Thanks.

-M<

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