[cap-talk] charging for spam. What are the implications

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

There is another solution to this,
1. The mail client accepts mail based on a senders whitelist,
2. Messages from senders not in the whitelist are put into a quarantine
folder and have to be approved,
3. The quarantine folder accepts only one message per sender until the
sender is added to the whitelist,
4. Messages that are not accepted are silently dropped.


val


On 22/01/2007, at 21.27, John Carlson wrote:

>I think that the only way that charging for spam is going to work is:
>1.  You have to give the recipient a one time revocable capability to  
>charge the sender.  If it's not revocable, then companies can  
>essentially steal money from each other.  If the capability is  
>revoked by the sender, the message disappears if it hasn't been read.
>spam cannot contain links which will notify the sender when the  
>message has been received.
>2.  Corporate accounts will need to be protected from disgruntled  
>employees sending out spam the day they leave.
>3.  If corporate accounts are protected, then corporations can spam  
>and blame it on disgruntled employees.
>4. Thus everyone will need to be personally responsible for the spam  
>they send.  Not a bad idea!
>5.  Corporations can choose to reimburse employees for the spam they  
>send.
>6.  Spam should be hashed, and duplicates discarded.
>
>Again the spam is just used to establish an initial communication and  
>contain information about identity (a certificate chain).   
>Thereafter, capabilities are used to communicate.
>
>John
>_______________________________________________
>cap-talk mailing list
>cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
>http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk