Re: Inexpensive anti-spamware/anti-verminware tactic

JR> They pay for incoming storage. The user has direct control 
JR> of incoming storage since they can delete things from it. 

That's another new guise for the "just hit delete" argument.  It's false, 
of course.  The user does not have full control over incoming storage, 
since the user does not directly control what is _put in_ that storage.  
Or are you saying that all of the people around the world with overflowing 
mailboxes are just illusions brought on by eating too many oglanuts ?

JR> The user has little-to-no control over outgoing storage.

False.  The user has full control over outgoing storage in IM2000 since
he/she directly determines (by sending messages) what is put in that storage;
and since he/she is paying the message store for it, he/she also of necessity
has control over what is retained in that storage.

JR> Yeah, users'll be *real* happy about being told "you can't send
JR> any more mail to anyone until some of the people you mailed in 
JR> the past delete it, maybe you could ring them all up and ask 
JR> them nicely".

That's a mischaracterisation and a straw man.  Read the proposals.