On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:57:39 EST, Wirt Atmar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> There is a backbone to the internet. The charges can be assessed there and
> backbilled to the various ISPs. It would then be the ISPs' responsibility
> to allocate their total charge to their individual customers.
>
> Wirt Atmar

A proposal that I have been kicking around in my head for some time
would see each e-mail header carry a unique PEK style token validated
by a DNS service that would pass the transmission fee along to the
ultimate recipient.  Providers would be required, as a condition of
internet e-mail connectivity, to subscribe to such service and to
guarantee payment, probably through the use of a performance bond.
Compliant MTA's would require such a header to the forward mail.  The
ultimate e-mail recipient would receive the fee as a credit to their
account.  This would not eliminate UCE/spam but it would most certainly
change the dynamics.  It would then be profitable, possibly, for an
individual to receive spam but it would likely be uneconomical to send
mass e-mail.

Even if the fee was set as low as $0.001 per message then it would still
cost $1,000.00 per million e-mails to send UCE, driving most of the
amateurs out of the business.  The average iNet user would hardly
notice such a fee since I very much doubt that the many people send
more than a few dozen e-mails a week, if that. Mailing lists might suffer
but consider that it would be possible for all members of such a list to
refund the cost of delivery by automatically generating a receipt
confirmation to a special address used by the list operator specifically for
such purpose.

Fraudulent senders would still remain but their ability to operate would
be severely impacted by a requirement to pre-pay for a set volume of
delivery service rather than exploiting the current practice of in effect
posting a promissory note for unlimited bandwidth using a stolen credit
card account.  A delay of several days between payment and
authorization of the e-mail service key would no doubt cut back
enormously on the number of successful credit misrepresentations.
Since the e-mail fee is prepaid to DNS-like service providers (rather like
a postage meter) the issue of collection does not arise.  This would not
be any more (or less) difficult to accomplish than the present DN Service
itself or the existing anti-spam utilization of specific DNS servers. It could
probably be effected by an extension to DNS itself.

Obviously this is not a completely worked out technical solution, but the
critical elements needed to make it happen are already proven in
practice. It only remains to develop a reasonable business model to see
it realized.  As the fee is passed along to the ultimate recipient the issue
of a tax or user fee does not really arise since this is a transaction fee
that is paid between the originator and recipient.

Sincerely,
Jim



--

***     e-mail is NOT a secure channel     ***
James B. Byrne                 mailto:ByrneJB.<token>@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive                 vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario               fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3CE               delivery <token> = hal

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *