RE: DNS Choices: Was: [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Just recently NA providers have introduced an encrypted mail. It requires a PC
client to encrypt the message. User retrieving the message does not need a client
but requires a password. It cost about 100 a year per account. The product is in its
early stage but some verticals show interest. It is interesting to see its impact on
e-mail. E.g. user controls her sender/recipient list and filters out all others.   


--- David Morris <dwm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> 
> > I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that
> > people have don't work.
> 
> It doesn't demonstrate any such thing. The physical junk mail I receive is
> much more targeted to my family than spam is. I wouldn't bother with spam
> filtering if I only got 5-10 junk emails per day. At 350-450 spams per
> day, I can't afford not to wory about filters.
> 
> In addition to postage, physical mail has significant production costs.
> Some junk mail probably costs more than $1 per mail piece. Big incentive
> to send it carefully. There is a very low production cost for spam, even
> the legitimate retailers who send well designed electronic spam only have
> design costs and no significant per piece cost.
> 
> It is pure naviety to assert that increasing the cost of sending spam will
> not reduce the amount sent. The operative word is REDUCE. Also note that
> my choice of words was 'cost'. There are many ways to associate cost with
> sending spam.
> 
> It isn't a trivial technical problem to revise the electronic message
> infrastructure to arrange for payment of postage but to assert that it
> can't be done or wouldn't be deployed flys in the face of the relatively
> short time frame for adoption of the WWW or IM.
> 
> Do you truly believe that if a reliable alternative to the current email
> infrastructure were available, which could operate in parallel with the
> current infrastructure in which you got minimal unsolicited email, it
> wouldn't be quickly adopted by major players?
> 
> Dave Morris
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]