From: "Mullen Patrick" <Mullen.Patrick@mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:57:36 -0800 (PST)
To: "Peter Hendrickson" <ph@netcom.com>
Subject: RE: Remailer Pricing
Message-ID: <n1364045177.55582@mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Peter Hendrickson's electrons stated
>It looks like I wasn't perfectly clear again.  Sorry about that.  The user
>does not tell anybody whether or not the mail has been read.  In fact,
>it's nobody's business but their own.  This is the advertiser's problem,
>and I don't really care whether they solve it.  In fact, the user does
>not have to put the remailer on the accept list.  He or she just has
>to tell the remailer operator that they would like to receive a dollar
>(or whatever) if the remailer operator sends them any mail.

Small point, but noted.  I thought the word "read" was mentioned, but 
obviously it was "received"...

Perhaps we've been thinking about anonymous mail the wrong way.  Is it
like the U.S. Post Office where you have to physically go someplace,
buy a stamp, physically write your message, put it in a physical envelope,
carry it to a box someplace, and then wait (maybe four days) for it to
arrive, all for "only" 32 cents?  Or is it more like Federal Express
where you pay 20 bucks and it arrives the next day, for sure, every time?

Earlier today somebody sent a message about his scary former employers
and (apparently) how they just kill people.  Would that person pay, say,
$5 to have the message delivered reliably and very anonymously?  My
judgement is that it would be worth every penny, and probably more.

>Right now the remailer network is a mess.  There just aren't that many
>remailers operating in a timely and reliable manner.  I am not knocking
>the remailer operators for this, it's just clear that "free" doesn't
>make it worth their while to keep the remailers operating perfectly
>at all times.

Very true.  This strengthens my point that the remailer operator would
want a piece of the pie, as well...

>A good pricing strategy for remailers would be to charge, say, $1 for
>instant delivery, $.50 for 30 minute delivery, etc.  To generate
>interest, 4 hour delays could be imposed for free remailing, if the
>resources are available.

fTotalCostOfDelivery = fCostOfReceipt + nRemailersUsed * fRemailerCost

Obviously, nRemailersUsed is only necessary for anonymous chaining...

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing meant by this equation, no point 
trying to be made, nothing.  I'm just showing you the pricing strategy.

I strongly agree with you that paying for remailer use would greatly 
improve service, and would probably be a good thing.  In the case of
chaining, there would have to be a great deal of trust involved so none
of the remailers stole all the postage w/out forwarding the message.  
(Just a thought, anyway)

Here's an idea I was tossing around sometime earlier--
One capitalist idea that would invalidate this theory.  A remailer would
make a lot of money if they made a deal with an advertiser, esp. an 
advertising agency (containing ads for many companies, if I chose the 
wrong words) if they eliminated incoming postage, and possibly paid outgoing 
postage or had the ad agency pay the postage (within limits, of course).
The remailer would then tag on advertisements to each mailing.  Direct
marketing (Note: This is what we're trying to avoid, but I see it happening)
The non-charging remailer would become wildly popular, as they don't 
charge postage, and they would be fast, because they would have corporate
sponsorship.  This idea is *far* from being farfetched; it exists now.
Every mail I receive at my free geocities account has an ad attached.

Patrick