Re: Inexpensive anti-spamware/anti-verminware tactic

JdeBP> Moreover, you are falling into the trap, that people fall 
JdeBP> into time and again, of addressing the wrong problem.  The
JdeBP> problem isn't denial of network service.  It's unsolicited 
JdeBP> bulk mail.  Denial of service is a completely different (and,
JdeBP> as far as I can tell, unavoidable) problem.

JCB> Hold on a second!  *Today's* problem *includes* denial of 
JCB> network service.  

It's not the intent, though.  It's merely a side-effect.  (The intent 
of the opposition is, of course, to have people read their messages, 
not to _prevent_ that.)  Denial of network service as an actual problem 
is another, separate, problem in its own right.

JCB> If IM2000 addresses only UBE, then *sufficient* similarities
JCB> between IM2000 as actually widely deployed and SMTP as deployed,
JCB> such that IM2000 fails to *eliminate* UBE, would result in 
JCB> denial of network service in a future IM2000 world, just as we
JCB> have today.

The existence or otherwise of UBM is irrelevant to denial of network 
service.  As I said, it's a completely different (and, as far as I 
can tell, unavoidable) problem.

JCB> if "IM2000 does not directly incorporate direct recognition 
JCB> of unsolicited and bulk qualities", [...] then UBE continues 
JCB> to exist, possibly thrive, in an IM2000 world, since IM2000
JCB> cannot, itself, *recognize* it.

Read the very next sentence on the page as well.  

JCB> if "multiple copies of messages, even of messages sent to
JCB> many recipients, do not actually exist in the first place 
JCB> until the recipients actually request the senders to make 
JCB> them", as your web page says, under IM2000, then the *cost* 
JCB> to send UBE to bazillions of people [...] might actually be
JCB> *lower* than it is today.

Oh good grief!  You are _still_ stuck on the costs to senders.

Yet again:

<URL:http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/Proposals/IM2000/design.html#SendingIsCheap>

JCB> is IM2000 different *enough* from employing Defer Hostility 
JCB> or similar SMTP-based, incremental measures, on an ad-hoc 
JCB> basis, in terms of resource utilization, to make replacement 
JCB> of SMTP with IM2000 worthwhile?

Yes.  I told you in the message that you are replying to here that
the distribution of costs is very different.

JCB> But I think we could do even *better* than IM2000, without 
JCB> designing a system much more complicated than it; so, ignoring 
JCB> deployment costs, why not design a better system, and, taking
JCB> into account deployment costs, given that IM2000 is not yet 
JCB> deployed, why not deploy that better system instead of wasting 
JCB> time deploying IM2000?  

Because the grass is not necessarily greener.  

JdeBP> Again, you are buying into the very dubious notion that an 
JdeBP> "improved SMTP" will ever exist.  No-one has yet come up 
JdeBP> with one, and as such you cannot say how flexible it might 
JdeBP> be relative to IM2000.

JCB> Again, that might be a sort of semantic quibble.  

No.  It isn't.

JCB> (Suppose we renamed IM2000 to "improved SMTP" [...])

Then the comparison of the relative flexibility of IM2000 with 
"improved SMTP" that you made would be a somewhat pointless one.