In message <440A3C13.3090600@???>, Marc Perkel <marc@???>
writes
>I don't allways agree with EFFs position on things - especially spam.
>But the payment of money isn't a good way to distinguish real email from
>spam.
as it happens I agree [and I've published papers on why mechanisms like
this fail], though there's a lot of people who believe in economic
approaches...
>It quashes free speech and allows spammers to pay to send you
>spam.
... they usually argue that spammers can't afford to send their material
but other legitimate people will.
Still, that's not quite the issue here! although compared with most
proposed schemes for "pay for email" it's quite expensive so the people
who believe in the economics ought to be quite enthusiastic.
>I also tend to protest and kind of attempt to take what is
>essentially an open public worldwide network and turn it into a private
>corporate fascist controlled network.
AOL are continuing to accept _your_ email (and mine, since my IP address
is registered to send to them) in just the same way -- so I don't quite
see how they're controlling the public worldwide network in any
significant manner.
>So my suggestion is a gentle way
>of expressing my concerns to AOL in their log files.
Then, for consistency and the proper impact, you should be arranging to
do the same with Yahoo! and researching how to distinguish the clients
of Habeas and Ironport's Bonded Sender programme (I believe MSN and
Hotmail are signed up) ... and doubtless some other systems as well.
- --
richard Richard Clayton
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
