Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)
From: Christoph Gartmann (gartmann_at_non.immunbio.mpg.de.sens)
Date: 10/01/03
- Next message: Christoph Gartmann: "Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)"
- Previous message: Bradford J. Hamilton: "Re: ITRC Download site - some answers"
- In reply to: david20_at_alpha1.mdx.ac.uk: "Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)"
- Next in thread: david20_at_alpha2.mdx.ac.uk: "Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 1 Oct 2003 07:21:43 GMT
In article <bld6s7$ifu$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>Now to the case where delivery of a mail is unsuccessfull: it doesn't matter if
>>it counts as a message. The amount of these cases is neglectable to the overall
>>number of successfully delivered messages. On the other hand, it is technically
>>possible to do an exact billing, but I think it is not worth the overhead.
>>
>As a percentage of successfully delivered mail messages that maybe so but to
>the user who sent out one mail message and is billed for a thousand it is a
>different matter.
The question is whether such scenarios will really exist. As soon as there is a
fee even for unsuccessfull connection attempts those will be immediately
reduced to reasonable numbers. An average user will send perhaps a dozen
messages per day. I would assume that almost all of them will go through
immediately. From time to time there is one that has to bee resent every four
hours during three days or so. So the poor users will have to pay for 18
additionale messages. Remember, I suggest a SMALL fee, 0.05 $ or even lower. A
fee that will only be high in case of huge counts.
>You seem to be assuming that mail and the internet are a hierachical network.
>They aren't. SMTP is routed over a virtual connection directly between the
>sender and recipient systems (Organisations may force this to also pass through
>intermediate systems ie their central mailhubs if they wish).
I am well aware of that. But I still don't see any contradiction with my
approach. Direct connections between small ISPs, links between companies, they
all won't be affected and be free. As a government I would only impose the fee
on the few largest network companies, those that provide the big lines or
links. What these companies then will do is up to them. There are several
possibilities but I am sure that the billing will go along all the channels
until they reach single customers in various places of the world. It is very
likely that contracts will look pretty the same as they do nowadays, with one
exception: the fixed or traffic bound fee will increase if originating mail
messages will exceed a certain number. This number will vary from contract to
contract and will usually not be exceeded unless something "strange" is going
on, e.g. a spammer starts working at your site or you suffer from a virus like
SWEN, etc. . But you will double your effort to prevent such cases (it costs
money!) or take measures to stop such cases.
Regards,
Christoph Gartmann
--
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Phone : +49-761-5108-464 Fax: -452
Immunbiologie
Postfach 1169 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de
D-79011 Freiburg, Germany
http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html
- Next message: Christoph Gartmann: "Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)"
- Previous message: Bradford J. Hamilton: "Re: ITRC Download site - some answers"
- In reply to: david20_at_alpha1.mdx.ac.uk: "Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)"
- Next in thread: david20_at_alpha2.mdx.ac.uk: "Re: Fee Based Email (From Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|