| Newsgroups |
gmane.mail.im2000 |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Can you guys remove me from your address book.
I have asked a few times but still getting emails. Please remove
[email protected] I'm really not interested in your cause and registered
in error.
Cheers
Tony
On 14/04/2005, at 3:40 PM, James Craig Burley wrote:
>> E-Mail is free and should always be free. Any system that is not
>> will never
>> succeed.
>
> More to the point, any such system ceases to be "email" in the proper
> sense of the word.
>
> After all, any pay-based system for email is going to run into the
> rather serious problem that the Internet that underlies any such
> technology is, itself, prone to the exact same problems that email
> faces. email is simply one of the more tempting targets.
>
> Unless the Internet is to be changed into a pay-as-you-go system, in
> which merely sending a *packet* to an external host is expected to
> carry with it the "promise" of payment if the receiving host decides
> it didn't care to receive it, email won't go in this direction with
> any useful degree of success.
>
> OTOH, I think it's possible that email (or, perhaps more likely and
> more elegantly, something like my GUIXP idea) will evolve to the point
> where software agents negotiating a transaction (such as the exchange
> of an email containing, or allegedly containing, a particular kind of
> *content*) might have the *option*, based on profiles of the persons
> or organizations on whose behalf their acting, of executing a contract
> that includes financial remuneration under different scenarios.
>
> We're not too far away from that idea already. A consultant offering
> arbitrary clients answers to technical questions, whose web site
> allows them to pay via PayPal, might, in another few years, be using
> his own software agent to perform substantial aspects of the
> negotiations over payments.
>
> In a scenario like that, it's the receiving party that would be
> expected to pay the *sender* of an email, since the email contains
> information more useful to the receiver than to the sender.
>
> Email *itself*, therefore, needn't, and probably shouldn't, impose a
> substantially higher penalty on its use over whatever people pay to
> access the Internet in the first place, because, first and foremost,
> it's a *communications* medium.
>
> And, as a communications medium, the costs to use it are best spread
> out among *all* of those who have access to it, since its
> availability, not just it's actual use, represents substantial value
> to anyone who is online, as well as substantial expense to maintain as
> an infrastructure. It's a "commons", akin to roadways.
>
> --
> James Craig Burley
> Software Craftsperson
> <http://www.jcb-sc.com>
>