4 ms·
Certainly, one of the problems with email is that it is free for the sender. If sending an email required even a small amount of "postage", even a thousandth o
by BayAreaEscapee 5y ago
Certainly, one of the problems with email is that it is free for the sender. If sending an email required even a small amount of "postage", even a thousandth of a cent, it would solve a lot of problems. (Perhaps, the receiver would get the bulk of this "postage", with the service provider creating the infrastructure getting a commission.)
The problem with it is that there is no easy way for anyone who is willing to pay a thousandth of a cent to send an email to someone to pay it. Despite how much the internet has boomed in the last thirty years, there is still no good way for individual consumers to send and receive micropayments worldwide.
- rickydroll 5y agoback in the mid to thousands. I had a working example of a sender pays email environment. it used hash cash embedded in an email message in combination with content filtering. it was more of a proof of concept that an actual practical system but if I was going to do it again today I would instead put the postage at the SMTP level as a protocol extension where your reputation from the mail service perspective would tell you how big a Hash cash stamp to create. This model would accommodate inflation and familiarity for generating bigger and smaller stamps. It's an interesting project for anyone that has the time.
- admax88qqq 5y agoPostage has done nothing to stop the tremendous amount of spam flyers I receive every week.
- rchaud 5y agoThat's because postal revenue from spammers helps defray the cost of sending all the regular mail.
- admax88qqq 5y agoIt's also because postage doesn't outweigh the revenue from sending spam. So why would that be the case for digital mail?