> I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that people > have don't work. Some users seem always find a way to do harm with innocent things (a sort of a normal distribution, I guess). In the case of postal mail at least the post office has collected money. By the same token for a provider any paid e-mail including spam is a source of revenue. --- "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:jhutz@xxxxxxx] > > > As is my usual practice, I asked the post office to hold my > > mail while I was away at IETF 67 (this is a standard service > > offered by the US Postal Service at no charge). I took some > > time off after, so when I finally picked up my mail, it was > > about 3 weeks worth. I received a plastic shopping bag full > > of mail, and after I sorted through it, I had several bills > > and a grand total of three other pieces, all of which were > > prearranged (an issue of QST, a newsletter, and an > > invitation). The rest of the bag was spam. > > I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that people > have don't work. > > But if postal mail recipients could impose filters they would. > > And there is in point of fact an entire police force tracking down scam artists > using the postal mail. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf