>Further, any cost increase in email that is less than the cost of bulk >postal mail will not deter genuine spammers. But even the regular user >would feel the crunch if each email cost $0.37. If the IETF had to pay >$0.37 per email, or even $0.15 per email, its 2 million/yr or so budget >would not cover its email costs, and your draft would not be published. Dan says: Well, I have never gotten an unsolicited paper item for Viagra, but have gotten hundreds of electronic ones. There is a distinction between unsolicited communications, direct marketing, and spam. Its subtle and creates (in the US) first amendment rights issues that are non-trivial. But, 100M email mass solicitation at $0.001 each is $100K, which is a medium good houseworth of dollar value here. I think it would annihlate the worst of mass spam. Obviously, all email could travel as free per or some stipulated super low, sub penny cost. EMail programs would instantly sort it and offer to throw away the < $0.01 items I don't see a compelling reason to add a cost in the absolute case. In such a scenerio after even one $0.01 message your email infrastructure could hand subsequent items for $0.00 per. I think whoever thought up the idea should be identified as a pretty sharp cookie. Its just slices through so many thorny issues with few downsides. Of course, if absolutely no one responded to spam the incentive wouldn't be there to send it. So maybe we just need more time for young people .... Hey! There is a guy in Nigeria who wants to give me two million dollars. Gotta go!