From: bpettigrew@usa.net
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:25:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)
Message-ID: <ww01-BHBXRE2923@netaddress.usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk wrote:
> OK, lets say we make emails free, unmetered, but they _must_ include 
a
> valid token for 0c.  (OK Dimitri?)
>
> Next we choose a threshold say 1000 posts per day.  Seems hard to
> imagine anyone generating manually over 1000 emails per day.  That's
> more than 1 per minute for a 10 hour day.
>
> Next when you sign up for this new email postage system, you have to
> hand over a $100 deposit.  The 0c payments are anonymous.  But if 
you
> spend over 1000 of them in one day, your identity becomes known (via 
a
> mechanism like that used for Chaum's off-line double spending
> detection protocol).  You loose $100.  To you, the spammer, the 
posts
> cost 10c each.  Your account is disabled until you pay another $100.

How would this work.  The ISP is enforcing these rules?  But the email
is not anonymous to the ISP.  Or is the email going through a 
remailer.

Why not just have an ISP say you can't send more than 1000 emails a
day.  But then what stops other ISPs from using different rules to
get the business of spammers.

--
	Bubba Pettigrew