[Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

[Mark Sapiro]

Jan Steinman wrote:
>
>Besides, individuals wouldn't be doing the payments, their providers  
>would. The key is SMTP servers -- THEY would be the ones that would  
>have to handle the accounting. And arguably, they might be the ones  
>receiving payment anyway, since they are the ones ultimately bearing  
>the cost. (I'd love to get $0.00001 for every spam my SMTP server  
>passes -- would much more than pay for the email all my customers send  
>out.)


And how does this work when the actual spam message is sent by a
malware infected computer belonging to an arguably innocent user and
is sent by direct SMTP to the recipient's MX?

Of course, if you're suggesting that there be some clearing house
mechanism whereby no MTA accepts mail without a payer, that might work
although I suspect the spammers will figure a way for someone else to
pay the bill and the net effect will be to just require people like me
to go through extra steps to set up a payment account.

Also, such a scheme is fraught with all the problems that currently
affect SPF, DKIM, etc with forwarded mail.

-- 
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan