Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops)

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:30:49 +1200 (ANAT)

I have to stop you here. This is a real bad idea 

The Internet is not the telephone or postal system. Telcos loved this pricing model, but time have changed, get over it ;) 

I understand the furstration and the free cycles used, but ... 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Shein" <[email-masked]> 
To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Friday, 14 November, 2008 10:17:45 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected 
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops) 

On November 13, 2008 at 16:41 [email-masked] (Seth) wrote: 
> Barry Shein <[email-masked]> wrote: 
> 
> > So if I limited you to 1 million messages per day (for free, after 
> > that you pay) perhaps you could operate as you do now but the spammers 
> > would be out of business. 
> > 
> > Or maybe 1,000 msgs/day, etc. 
> 
> How do you know who "I" am? 
> 
> Limit a spammer to 1000 messages/day, and he'll just steal 1 million 
> "identities" and send his billion spams. He does it through tens of 
> millions of hijacked zombies now, anyway. 
> 
> So, tell me _how_ you plan to limit everybody to 1,000 (free) messages 
> per day. 

The tone of hopelessness and despair is noted. 

The plan is to create an economy around bulk commercial messaging, all 
bulk commercial messaging. 

Then we won't have to rely on free volunteers stealing a few minutes 
here and there at work to solve this complex, global problem by 
repeating the same tired, defeatist remarks over and over thinking 
they've added something. 

Perhaps as an exercise we should take a month, stop all spam-related 
topics, and discuss how the global postal system or telephone system 
should work. Because it seems to me that there is little ability here 
to even converge on existing realities, let alone propose new 
regimens. 

By that I mean people here regularly "stand up" and disprove to a 
great degree of certainty that, e.g., cell phone systems (as they 
exist) cannot possibly be made to work, postage sytems, telephone 
systems in general, etc. etc. and in their mind declare the matter 
thus closed. 

It's really rather remarkable, like watching a bunch of self-declared 
physicists prove beyond a reasonable doubt (to themselves) that 
bumblebees cannot possibly fly* simply because the conclusion 
satisfies the constraints they wish to impose on the result. 

Of course here the process is transparently simple: No email charges 
may exist, always work backwards from that desired conclusion. 

* http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly 

-- 
-Barry Shein 

The World | [email-masked] | http://www.TheWorld.com 
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide 
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* 
_______________________________________________ 
Asrg mailing list 
[email-masked] 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:56:16 -0500

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
>I have to stop you here. This is a real bad idea 

Sorry to have bothered you my liege, a thousand pardons my liege,
shall I whip myself my lord?

Put another way, is this blind assertion trying to pass for
intelligent discussion???

>The Internet is not the telephone or postal system. Telcos loved this
>pricing model, but time have changed, get over it ;)

This reminds me of my old crack: what do you mean money doesn't grow
on trees? Money is made of paper, where do you think paper comes from?

>I understand the furstration and the free cycles used, but ... 

Free? Is that free as in beer or speech?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

---

From: mathew <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:31:43 -0600

On Nov 13, 2008, at 16:30, Franck Martin wrote:
> The Internet is not the telephone or postal system. Telcos loved  
> this pricing model, but time have changed, get over it ;)

Who said anything about telcos?

The "you can use as much as you like for free" model has been tried  
many times. The "recipient pays the costs, sending is free" model has  
been tried too. They've failed every time. Can you think of a single  
counterexample? If not, why do you think e-mail should magically be  
exempt from the normal observed laws of economics?

There's a reason why the postal service stopped charging the recipient  
the entire cost of mail service. There's a reason why we don't all  
have toll-free phone numbers. There's a reason why the Cambridge  
"green bike" scheme failed, why we have environmental pollution  
controls, why we have legally decided "water rights", and why there  
are controls on fishing. It doesn't matter that fish are nothing like  
postage stamps; the fundamental problem is the same.

mathew
[ http://meta.ath0.com/2006/01/22/spam1/ if you want a more detailed  
argument ]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg