Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > ... > About the "charging for email" thing: this doesn't have to be actual > money. Doing it with some kind of cryptographic token that is passed > from sender to recipient should work just as well in making > sure people > can't send many orders of magnitude more email than they receive, and > this wouldn't have many of the adverse effects of using money > for this. Rather than passing a token, require the mail to be encrypted with the public key of the recipient. This would do two things, make it expensive to send mass random mailings, and provide an incentive for the ISPs to actually deploy a PKI. > > Mabye a BOF would be in order in Vienna? A better idea than leaving the problem to languish as a research topic. Tony