CDR: RE: FW: BLOCK: AT&T signs bulk hosting contract with spammers

jim bell jimdbell at home.com
Sat Nov 4 21:04:59 PST 2000


----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Choate <ravage at einstein.ssz.com>
To: <cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com>
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote:
> > Hence, the obvious solution is to make it *cost money to send mail*
> > (or to use any other network resource).
>
> It already does (TANSTAAFL), what you seem to be missing is WHO is doing
> the paying. When the postman drops that mail in my mailbox it costs me
> nothing.

But it does, in fact.  It costs you the effort to look at it (and
distinguish it from desired mail) and that might mean you have to physically
open it up.  Then, you have to dispose of it, and that involves not merely
tossing it into the trash, but setting it out to be picked up once a week.
(Of course, those who burn their own trash may actually see "Uncle Spam" as
BTU's  (excuse me, calories or joules.))

A few years ago I proposed that email senders should be given the option of
including a small amount of digital cash along with that email, as
compensation for the inconvenience.  Email programs could be programmed to
sort the email in order of "tribute" sent:  I could very easily ignore an
email that gave me 1 penny, but I'd be intrigued by an email that included
$1.

"Spammers" who actually had an offer that a large fraction of the recipients
would be interested in could easily afford $1 per email, or more.

Jim Bell






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list