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

From: JC Dill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:46:32 -0700

At 07:25 PM 4/28/2004, [email-masked] wrote:

> >>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: Andreas Saurwein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:12:00 -0300

>want a free system to exchange messages.

Well, then your analogy raises the question, will people accept pay mail 
system over "free" mail systems when it is 100% spam free, always, forever? 
It doesnt have the same legal consequences, yet still its intriguing 
because of its benefit.

Andreas