Will certified e-mail stop spam? (was: unsubscribing... etc)

[Peter]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 wattst-dxuVLtCph9gsA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org wrote:

> Quoting Peter <plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg at public.gmane.org>:
>
>> Anybody who sends email that gets returned as spam, beyond a certain
>> small quota that takes care of temporary misconfigurations, should be
>> charged in escrow, by his own ISP. If the email is not returned as spam,
>> say within a week, the fee is waived. Mailing lists request and receive
>> special permission. Anybody who sends spam using that ISP pays through
>> the nose. Anybody whose computer was zombied gets a scary bill and the
>> alternative of terminating the account or immediately sanitizing the
>> computer and maybe paying a reduced fee for the inconvenience caused.
>> The ISPs will be only too glad to oblige. Any spammer on their network
>> would be charged to the tune of $20,000 per month. This would be good,
>> because other ISPs who would receive the spam could sue them, and they
>> would need the money for legal costs...
>>
>> Peter
>
> "Anybody whose computer was zombied gets a scary bill and the alternative of
> terminating the account or immediately sanitizing the computer and maybe paying
> a reduced fee for the inconvenience caused."
>
> This is absolutely what I don't believe can happen.  I guess that's just how I
> see it and will drag my feet the whole way should anyone decide to implement
> this system.

You have the right to oppose it, but judging from the track record of 
opposition, it will result in two parallel tracks on the ground, left by 
your heels ;-) Of course, I wish you good luck. Maybe you are right, and 
I am wrong, but I feel that something must be done.

> Second, how are the ISPs going to separate the mailing lists from the spammers?
> I'm thinking the measures they would need to take would just be too great and
> time consuming to be worthwhile.

No, there are few mailing lists per originating host. Each mailing list 
admin asks the host admin for permission to run said list. This is 
willingly granted and the host admin simply sets the 'allowed' spam 
(actually 5xx response) quota for that account very high (to be able to 
cope with the usual chaff that occurs when running mailing lists and 
clients unsubscribe without telling etc). The spam quota can be 
implemented by something as simple as a mail filter that totalizes 5xx 
responses and keeps message ids per user for a week (to validate 
incoming 5xxs which may be bogus). Once a month the 5xxs count per user 
is turned into billing information. That's it. One could set alarms per 
sequence (many 5xxs one after the other), per quantity, etc. In certain 
countries the ISPs are already obliged to do this by law (not to keep 
just the ids, but also the messages).

Then, later, ISPs could start charging each other by 5xxs caused. E.g. 
if ISP A sends mail to B causing say >10,000 5xxs per month .and. this 
is more than, say, 10% of their mutual traffic then it makes sense for B 
to 'sue' A (through some sort of arbiter that does not yet exist), to 
recover the cost of the 'damage' (in fact B has real costs because this 
is real bandwidth B pays for - if this traffic would not exist then B 
could save money by downgrading a broadband link, for example). Some 
sort of 'standard' mutual contract could be established by the arbiter 
body that would govern the percentage and the numbers and other issues, 
by size, type, etc. The teeth of the arbiter body would consist in its 
ability to recommend participating hosts to ban all traffic from/to A if 
A does not comply within a set time. Nobody would be obliged to do 
anything, *but* most hosts have an interest to do so since they now have 
proof that they are losing money (by buying bandwidth) to accomodate 
proven spam from A, and could 'sue' too if having proof (5xxed messages 
from A). A would voluntarily implement the spam quota and tariff to its 
users because of liability. If A is ever caught out spamming, and has no 
money to settle the damage, it can become deleted by being vetoed by 
enough hosts, following the arbiter's recommendation.

After a few furious exchanges there should exist a sort of equilibrium 
where email continues to be free, mailing lists enjoy a special regime 
(i.e. more leeway from ISPs and hosts when they bounce lots of messages 
occasionally), and spammers pay for what they send.

Peter
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml