Subject: [Asrg] E-postage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:57:47 -0500

>> Well, yes.  The basic problem with spam is the imposition of cost on
> unwilling recipients; I see little point in epostage that pays some
> other party, as then the recipient has still lost; it's just that
> someone else has benefited instead.  I fail to see how this improves
> matters significantly.

> It improves matters by significantly raising the transaction cost for
the spammer to send mail (currently ballpark 0.01 cent), thus reducing
the attractiveness of this advertising medium.

That's the standard argument, yes.

But the TRUTH of the matter is that spammers will just do what they've done ALL 
ALONG and shift that cost to others to pay... by making sure that OTHER users of 
the net will pay for the spammers' E-postage.  (Spambot zombies, etc etc.)

What you're doing is increasing (by a LARGE amount) the overhead of handling 
E-mail, not to mention the HUGELY labor-intensive work of correcting all the 
problems caused by the spammers and false charges, and all of those charges are 
going to be borne NOT by the spammers, but by everybody else.

Remember the phone company's assertion that something like 85% of the cost of a 
long distance phone call is the cost of billing you for it.  (And THAT is for a 
service where it's nearly impossible to "steal" service by billing to the 
"wrong" caller...).  The result is that you're going to HUGELY increase cost of 
E-mail, and those costs are going to come back onto the LEGITIMATE users...

For many, many years, directory assistance calls were "free".  They were 
included in the cost of your phone service, and that cost a fraction of what it 
does today.

Phone companies argued that "some people are abusing Directory Assistance!" and 
they said that they wanted to put into place a limit on free directory 
assistance... but not to worry, the limit would be high enough that almost no 
legitimate users would ever reach it and have to pay.  

As soon as they got the "pay for Directory Assistance" dam breached, they 
steadily reduced the number of free calls (now, most subscribers get NO free 
directory assistance calls per month) and increased the cost of each call to 
LUDICROUS levels.  Then they added insult to injury by stopping even TRYING to 
provide phone books at pay telephones, so you have NO CHOICE but to call 
directory assistance for the phone numbers you need.

Had they REALLY been concerned about abuse, a better (and less abuse-prone) 
scheme would have been:  Directory Assistance calls, IF the number is not in the 
current published-and-delivered directory, are FREE.  If you call directory 
assistance for a number which IS in the published-and-delivered directory (and 
that you thus could have looked up) then there is a dissuasive penalty of $5 per 
call.  The fact that they charge for ALL directory assistance calls, INCLUDING 
for numbers which are not published in the directory, proves that they were NOT 
simply trying to stamp out abuse...!

This thing about E-mail... "We'll of course give you enough "free" "e-mail 
stamps" each month that nobody legitimate will have to pay extra" is only just a 
ruse to get folks to say "Well, in that case... maybe it won't be so bad..." but 
you can COUNT on the same tightening-the-ratchet once the basic "pay per unit" 
scheme is in place...  :-((((

AND, like SPF, you have NOT done anything that will PREVENT spam.  So you have 
YET ANOTHER expensive and cumbersome intensively technical/administrative 
solution that ultimately WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM!

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support free and fair US elections!  http://stickers.defend-democracy.org
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:09:34 -0400

> the net will pay for the spammers' E-postage.  (Spambot zombies, etc etc.)

Yeah but now it's going to begin to cost the ISPs, or the victims, who
harbor such behavior so there's some real incentive to get this
cleaned up.

 > going to be borne NOT by the spammers, but by everybody else.

And you think that spammers aren't currently vastly increasing the
cost of handling e-mail now?

I guess as an ISP that's the most frustrating part of any spam
discussion, this idea that well, spam is annoying, but it's basically
free so any cost to clean it up is just an added cost to the service.

Crap.

The other day we were being pelted by a single spam from over 1,500
different IP addresses, presumably all compromised. That's not a
singular incident, in fact the day before a similar incident involving
over 1,000 hosts occurred tho I'll admit numbers like that don't tend
to happen daily, probably the same bunch of criminals in that case,
but a coupla-few times a month? Yes. Hundreds at a time? A few times
per week, etc. Spammers who can switch between a dozen or two IP
addresses as fast as you can block them? Daily.

Do you think that kind of rising tide, while maintaining an acceptable
service to customers, is without cost?

Not to mention all the money which goes into spam-fighting, most of it
nearly useless (firewalls, software, etc), and customer support,
people expect help with this and a lot of the problems they run into
they do not expect to pay for (e.g., clearing up a false positive, how
to deal with an overflowed mailbox, etc.)

So, your point only holds water if we're to agree that the current
situation is cost-free or nearly so, so the solution must be cost-free
or nearly so.

I assure you, we do not agree on that point.

 > long distance phone call is the cost of billing you for it.  (And THAT is for a 

Yeah, sure, do you have a cite for this, numbers like this along with
the assertion that it costs some percentage like that to collect taxes
are awfully popular urban legends but upon examination tend to fall
apart.

 > simply trying to stamp out abuse...!

Well, your notions of economic justice in directory assistance no
doubt are interesting perhaps you should call your phone company.

 > scheme is in place...  :-((((

But you ignore the downside of not doing anything.

One of my more dire predictions is that the entire email system as we
know it falls apart and ends up in the hands of the phone companies
who as monopolies (regional or otherwise) will just position it like
SMS and charge 15cents/email or thereabouts.

 > solution that ultimately WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM!

Um, this doesn't follow, if e-mail got terribly expensive as you fear
I suspect that one result would certainly be the death of spam, even
if it'd be within a regimen you dislike.

I think I'll chalk your point up to: I don't want to pay and email
sounds like I might have to pay, so keep thinking until you can come
up with a solution that works well and costs nothing.

Well, hey, good luck.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:31:25 -0400

Barry Shein <[email-masked]> wrote:
> to happen daily, 

  I *dream* of getting spam from only 1K hosts a day.

  While my situation is unusual, it's the leading edge, and a
predictor of others situations in the future.

> situation is cost-free or nearly so, so the solution must be cost-free

  I'd put the objections a different way.  It's difficult to quantify
the recipients cost due to spam.  Sure, you can come up with
reasonable figures for end-users losing productivity due to spam, but
those figures aren't a line item on someones budget.

  In contrast, anti-spam systems *are* line items, especially to the
people who deploy them, and to anti-spam companies.  Any solution,
therefore, which reduces spam, has huge cost to some parties, and
non-accountable savings to others.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:30:58 -0400

>   I *dream* of getting spam from only 1K hosts a day.

That's 1,000 different hosts sending ONE SPAM simultaneously, at one
given instant.

Not 1,000 per day.

-- 
        -Barry Shein