Subject: Re: [Asrg] E-postage/hashcash - the future

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:28:34 +1100

Just for the sake of clarification as my original message seems to have
been misinterpreted.

All I was saying was that _if_ a payment system of any kind was introduced
it would certainly stop
the spam that is a plague today.  What I warned was that if this is the
course that is followed then a new scourge
would quickly follow.  That scourge would be similar to the junk paper mail
we now receive, sent by legitimate businesses

That's all my initial message concerned.

Since then I now find I am being attacked and insulted for just having that
opinion.

I will just go back to lurking I think as some of you are just not
interested in any new discussion.

Cheers

John

> >>In any case, I do see your point, but was just trying to express my
> >>opinion as to what I think will happen if email is chargeable
>
> >It's about as useful as expressing an opinion as to what will happen
when
> >cars run on water.
>
>Well, thank you for suggesting my opinion was useless

Those are your words, not mine.

> >You have to look at the obstacles to making it happen.  Thinking about
how
> >nice it will be "when it happens" is a waste of time if it ain't never
> >gonna happen.
>
>I don't _have_ to do anything thank you!
>
>I certainly was not suggesting a way to make the situation better,

Well, the topic of this mailing list is to RESEARCH ANTI-SPAM
solutions.  If you aren't going to suggest ways to make the situation
better, perhaps there are other lists that would be better places for your
musings.

>I fully admit that, I simply I posted my opinion, which is based on what
>_I_  think will happen next, regardless of which pay ' system' you plan to
>introduce.

I don't plan to introduce any "pay system" because I don't think they will
be adopted enough to become successful.  These proposals are too cumbersome

and rely on centralized systems.  We will never get widespread adoption
when decentralized and simple solutions are available.

For instance, the only reason iTunes is successful instead of Napster is
because most of the content on Napster is/was protected by copyright, one
can't legally exchange copyright protected songs or software via
Napster.  Take away the legal restrictions, and the Napster model is
clearly superior to the iTunes model which is why the free market created
Napster when the RIAA refused to create a system for delivering songs over
the Internet.  Instead of songs we have messages, and you see why people
want a free system to exchange messages.

> >The first obstacle to making it happen is getting the first 1/2 of the
mail
> >clients/servers on the 'net to sign-on to whatever plan we propose and
> >implementing the necessary changes first, before there is any hope of
> >payoff.  The second obstacle is getting end users to agree to cut-off
the
> >last 1/2 of the mail clients/servers on the 'net (including aunt Sally
with
> >her old win95 box that can't be upgraded to a newer message system) once
> >"critical mass" has been achieved, to force all the older
clients/servers
> >to upgrade or die so that the new system has 100% of the message traffic
on
> >the 'net.  Both of these are *big* obstacles, and adding ePostage ON TOP
OF
> >THIS makes it considerably harder because we add a complicated payment
> >scheme on top of a complicated system upgrade.
>
>The only way to stop spam is at the delivery point.

If 100% of the spam that was injected into the system got 99% of the way to

the recipient and then was dropped on the floor, it would still stop 100%
of the spam.  Yes, this is more *costly* than stopping it at the delivery
point, but it is still EFFECTIVE.  You can't ignore other solutions just
because they aren't your preferred solution.

This is why filtering is one model that is presently economically
effective, people are paying Brightmail and Postini etc. to filter out spam

and deliver the non-spam.

>The certificates and/or payment schemes need to be a ISP
>level, not at the user level.  The user should not be involved at all.

That is but one solution, but by no means the only solution.  It might be
the best solution, or the worst solution.  You have to look at the problems

with implementing your proposed solution, and with the alternatives, before

you can tell if this is the best solution and if it's likely to succeed.

>In my opinion this is an industry problem, not a
>problem than needs any action by the user.

You are aware that most spam today is being sent by "the user"
right?  (Trojan-infected zombie computers on broadband.)

> >If it were easy it would have happened already by now.  And we would all
be
> >driving cars powered by water.
>
>Please, please, please stop using cheesy analogies.  There are already
cars
>that use water for fuel.  The reason they are not released for the general

>public
>may not be obvious to you.

If it were easy, and cheap, they would be out there.  The fact that they
aren't means that it isn't easy and cheap.

The spam problem is a difficult one to solve.  I've been actively fighting
it for 7 years now, and I've seen the problems we have had with getting
much simpler solutions put into place:

1)  Open relays still exist, open proxies followed and are abundant.
2)  Pink contracts were frequently written to sell to spammers, now they
simply get IP offshore and the networks sell international lines to the
offshore networks, having a "hands off" method of continuing to get the
revenue.
3)  UDP-type action against networks that sell to spammers has been
ineffective because too many really large networks are selling with the
above "hands off" methods.
4)  DDoSs and lawsuits against BL sites.
5)  Domain registrars sell domains to spammers, DNS providers sell DNS
services, offshore hosts host the spamvertized sites, etc.
6)  Trojans trick end users into installing zombie software so spammers can

spam from millions of end user locations.
7)  Etc.

Anti-spam forces have tried one by one to stop each of these problems as
they developed, without much success.  Numerous proposed solutions for
fixing many of these prior problems were suggested, all MUCH simpler to
implement than the ePostage scheme, yet they were not widely adopted or
implemented and all of these problems continue today.

BTW, I have a Millicent coin in my drawer from ~1996 when Digital Equipment

Corp (DEC, remember them?  They created AltaVista...) thought that
micropayments would be the way everyone would pay for web content.

<
http://seminars.seyboldreports.com/1997_san_francisco/EditorsAnalysis/IP020312.HTM

Do you see anyone paying for web content today?  How much have you paid in
micropayments for content today?  This week?  This month?  This year?  How
much has your ISP paid on your behalf and then bundled the charge into your

ISP bill?  Zero, zip, zilch, nothing, nada, not one single red cent?  Then
why do you suddenly think that a payment system for email will be adopted
when one for web content (which cost billions of dollars to produce) hasn't

been adopted?

Come up with a convincing argument for why the entire Internet should and
will adopt a complicated ePostage payment system to replace today's present

simple and free email system when we can't even get widespread adoption of
a free existing system that produces an end-to-end audit trail
(authenticated SMTP between client and server and between all servers) of
all email messages thru the net.

jc

p.s.  please don't send me cc's of your replies.  reply to me, or to the
list, as you prefer.  But not both.

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

---

From: "Chris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:27:21 +0930

> interested in any new discussion.

You are right, some people cannot stand having their views challenged

The internet is thought of as a level playing field. where the mighty and
the minor can stand shoulder to shoulder
e-postage delivers the internet back to the mighty (read rich) as you have
so rightly pointed out.

We must stop the abuse of e-mail by spammers without delivering what the
large corporations want.

Which is total control.

Those who are in the employ of large corporations will always rigorously
decry any suggestion that deviates from that plan

Regards
Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 1:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] E-postage/hashcash - the future
>
>
>

been adopted?

jc