Re: non-censorous spam control (was Re: Spam is Information?)

[Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>]

Kent Crispin writes:

> I agree.  If charging for mail would eliminate spam, then I should not
> be getting the mailboxfull of physical junk mail I receive every
> morning.  Postage benefits the MAIL CARRIER, not the recipient, and it
> is in the best interests of the mail carrier to carry MORE mail, not
> less.  So, e-postage will almost certainly cause more spam, not less. 

I dunno about the last part of this, but I agree with the basic point
(yes, I agree with Kent! It's a miracle! :-).

I used to think differently, but I've become convinced that the cost
of e-postage isn't going to be high enough that it'll be much of a
control.  Network bandwidth used for the purpose of email transport,
even with increased spamming factored in, is simply too low to justify
charging much for it.  It will still be *way* cheaper than surface mail.
So unless the percentage of people who delete it instantly, sight-unseen,
is higher than I suspect or new tools make it easy to filter out all
spam, it's going to remain economically advantageous for the spammers
to target broadly.


-- Jeff