Phillip Hallam-Baker writes... > I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' > schemes that people have don't work. I'm not so sure about that. The fact that there is a real cost certainly changes the dynamics of unsolicited mail, as well as the business model of the purveyors. Cost factors will not eliminate it, but it might improve the "quality" of the offers and reduce the quantity of messages. > But if postal mail recipients could impose filters they would. Indeed. > And there is in point of fact an entire police force tracking > down scam artists using the postal mail. Right. One additional distinction is that most unsolicited mail in the US (typically called junk mail) is mailed at discounted bulk postage rates. In order to mail at bulk rates, an organization needs a permit from the post office. This involves some level of "authentication". Of course, mail sent at first class or second class postage rates can be sent anonymously. However, I get very (very) few pieces of junk mail sent at first or second class rates. It's all bulk rate mail. This is another example of the cost of mailing driving the behavior set. A second distinction is that the US Postal System (in the US) is a government sanctioned monopoly, and in many countries the postal system is still a government agency. When you have a single entity acting as the receiver of all outgoing mail, it makes it much easier to enforce policies regarding cost and "authentication". In that regard, snail-mail is not a very good analogy for e-mail discussions. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf