1997-07-31 - Re: non-censorous spam control (was Re: Spam is Information?)

Header Data

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4dc443499338c97d4456b4c806074a2308a75bc7053800342629be0cc9c74bfa
Message ID: <19970731095523.04336@bywater.songbird.com>
Reply To: <199707311120.MAA00669@server.test.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-31 17:15:47 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:15:47 +0800

Raw message

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:15:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: non-censorous spam control (was Re: Spam is Information?)
In-Reply-To: <199707311120.MAA00669@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <19970731095523.04336@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Thu, Jul 31, 1997 at 08:16:59AM -0400, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>>One way to implement this is for other people to pay the author for their
>>articles a penny if they like the article.  That way people who write
>>things which others find interesting to read get subsidized posting.  Is
>>it still free speech if you have to pay for your posts if you're arguing
>>for an unpopular minority?
>This will not work!!!

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. 


>It should be noted that the Bandwith issue is a red-herring.

However, I think your argument here is faulty, because bandwidth is in
fact oversubscribed -- the whole system depends on each end subscriber
not using all their bandwidth all the time.

> The bandwith
>of the USENET has been *PAID IN FULL* by every subscriber to an ISP. The
>ISP customers pay for their connections to their ISP who in turn pay for
>their connections to the Access providers who inturn pay for the Backbone.
>The PIPE has been paid for what goes over it not an issue. If all I want
>to do with my T1 connection is ship *.jpg files via ftp 24/7 that is no
>ones busines but my own.

Not really.  A T1 line, for example, can handle maybe 40-50 28.8 modems 
going full blast, but a small ISP over a T1 might have 200 customers.  
This goes right on up the line -- at every level bandwidth is 
oversubscribed, and successful operation of the net depends on 
certain statistical usage patterns.  So, while it isn't written down 
in a contract anywhere, what you are really paying for is peak 
bandwidth, not sustained bandwidth.

Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55