John Levine wrote:
If some group wanted to build a closed pay-to-play mail system, they could do it with the tools they already have, using SMTP AUTH or STARTTLS with a private signing cert or VPNs or whatever. The reason they don't is that it makes no sense, and a tiny tweak like VBR isn't going to change that.
I didn't imply that any of the big 4 wants their users to pay for an email account. However, they are defining a mail system, which is possibly slightly different from the IETF definition, and flags spam abatement as a major advantage. Very roughly, that system is around one half of the total existing mailboxes[1]. That is to say, any one of the big 4 can expand its share better by acquiring users from minor MTAs than from direct competitors. This is not the same as a full blown cartel, but it tends to relegate minor MTAs to 2nd class.
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected VBR effect. (If that's meant as an apotropaic stance, I have no objection. Otherwise,) I wonder why we shouldn't push VBR as hard as we can, if it can stop spam.
Finally, I'd remark that, IMHO, such considerations are exactly what the IETF is for: not inventing mere rocket techniques, but do internet technology in its broadest meaning, including any economic, social, or political facet that may be relevant for the task.
-- [1] Microsoft webmail properties: 256.2 million users Yahoo: 254.6 million users Google: 91.6 million users AOL webmail properties: 48.9 million users http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm Internet users: 1,018,057,389 (2005) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#Comm _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf