D> After TLD reform 18,252 there is no problem expecting ISPs having to
D> pay their national governments 1 cent or even 0.1 cent for every email
D> sent and passing on the tax to those who sent it.

Of course there is. The problems would be (in the event that this daft
TLD reform were adopted) the same as they were before any such reform.

D> In the case of spam email, failure to build "real and governement
D> costs" into sending email and charging accordingly, has created a
D> potentially unlimited demand amongst spammers. Hence they seek to
D> profit maximize by sending as many "free" emails as they can manage to
D> get away with, rather than limit their dispatch demand to a budget
D> they can and "have to" afford. Taxing email is a logical solution.

Internet has given us a system where sending electronic mail is inherently
cheap. The answer to the problem of unsolicited bulk mail is not to add
artificial and otherwise nonexistent costs to sending mail. That's doing
away with one of the fundamental advantages over other systems of the new
electronic communication system that we have come up with. The answer is
to create a system for Internet electronic mail that _takes advantage_ of
the fact that creating and transmitting messages is cheap, instead of one
that is confounded by it.

D> If spam, unsolicited marketing email, was actively encouraged by
D> government and departments of industry the problem would resolve
D> itself. [...] If spam contained a 4.99 offer to buy an unpublished
D> poet's first piece of work, would we really object?

Yes. Content is irrelevant. Our mailboxes being stuffed with mass-mailed
leaflets and pamphlets is what we object to, irrespective of what those
leaflets and pamphlets advertise.

D> Indeed if locally targeted spam offered me cheap eggs to save a few
D> pence from a local farm, would I really object?

That is a straw man argument that assumes an impossible premise. There is
no way for UBM to be "locally targetted" for your "hush.com." mailbox, for
my "tesco.net." mailbox, or for most other people's mailboxes. The mailbox
names comprise no location information.

D> It requires disengagement to see that the real enemy is the banality
D> of the spam content.

False. Content is irrelevant.

D> Such has become our familiarity with the horrendous quality of
D> unsolicited junk that a potentially exciting direct marketing tool
D> has become the object of evil.

At this point, it becomes clear that this isn't an anti-UBM proposal at
all, but a poorly disguised charter for advertisers who want to freeload.

D> Bill boarding which is so effective is unsolicited, indeed so is the TV
D> advertisement in a manner of sorts. One does not generally request a
D> specific cereal advert. As for the complicity inherent in watching a
D> certain TV channel, so is there complicity in having an email inbox
D> open and active to receive spam.

And here, looking past the obviously and deliberately flawed analogies to
advertising systems where there is the ability for senders to be controlled
and where recipients do not pay to the subtle introduction of the notion
that recipients somehow agree to be pelted with advertisements simply by
doing nothing more than having electronic mailboxes, we can see Crissman's
Corollary looming on the far horizon.

D> However by encouraging a positive attitude to spam, so too would be
D> possible to engage the herd once it had began to drive spam forward
D> and so create spam protocols.

Who are "the herd" ?

D> The most obliging spam arrives with the three letters "ADV" for advert
D> at the beginning of the subject line. Government could enact legislation
D> to introduce a small selection of suitable initials that had to by law
D> be placed at the beginning of the subject line.

So why would the UBM senders, whose advertisements _already_ break the law
by advertising illegal products or fraudulent services, obey _this_ law ?

D> So too the subject line regulation would over time become a matter of
D> law and common observance.

Imposing structure on the "Subject:" field for the purposes of countering UBM
is just as daft an idea as imposing structure on the "Subject:" field for the
purposes of mollycoddling those who do not handle mailing list mail properly
or those who do not use the "References:" field for threading.

D> The liberty of the individual to mass mail would be maintained, [...]

It's always important to maintain those "frea speach" rights. Oh yes.

D> The encouragement of unsolicited email as a real, genuine and
D> entrepreneurial activity is the one real long term solution to the
D> current problem. Future generations may well be screaming "Spam. I
D> love it!" wondering what their grandparents meant by unsolicited.

Is this where we all now say, in chorus, "Cut it out, Ralsky!" ?