Well, reading the replies to this thread was most enlightening. It's good to get responses from both sides. I am only moderately surprised at the poll results, but the reasoning behind a lot of the "No way!" votes is sound.
I think now that what is really needed is a new email protocol.
The hardest part is working out just how it would work. Something using RSA encryption or something woud be the go, but at the same time be absolutely invisible to users.
Perhaps a new format with a sort of backtrace mechanism that is "unhackable", or something...
Or better still, make it mandatory for ISPs to have spam filters for their customers. Then, not nearly enough spam could get through to customers to filter out themselves. This, of course, introduces the problem of false identification of spam, leaving some non-spam email that never gets too its intended recipient.
A few ISPs have things like this already, and others make you pay for the option, (which is sad, really), but I think the benefits will far outweigh the cons...
As soon as you start charging for email, email will vanish.
If you aren't charged until you start sending out something like over a thousand or so e-mails per month, why abandon the current e-mail system, which could easily remain free when used within reasonable limits?
If you abandon the slightly-modified current e-mail system because you want to send spam, who's going to have the right software to receive your spam, sent via some new protocol, except someone who wants spam?
Shetline and dfiler bring up some excellent points, but most of us aren't going to buy into such a strategy. It seems to me that one cannot retrofit the old fashioned email architecture we all know and tolerate with this new technology without screwing things up. It would be a different story if traditional email were replaced with something superior, technology which would address the shortcomings of SMTP/POP/IMAP. The technology would ideally provide secure authentication, server side filtering and IMAP style header-only retrieval. (If we were to all switch to IMAP, we could do a better job with client side spam removal simply by avoiding mandatory downloads.) Then we could introduce a bullet-proof spam remedy similar to the ones proposed here. We all realize that users will shun change that's foisted upon them, so I think it's only prudent to leave traditional email the way it is.
I think this is an exciting prospect ? I'm on Microsoft's side with this, all the way.
I'm more worried about Microsoft's Internet Exploiter problem. Ok that is a pun on words, just incase, your ready to pounce on a spelling issue...
But I do wish MS would improve security issues on IE. This should be the only issue Bill Gates should be talking about, but thats sure to be found in another thread.
As far as, "Will somebody please, please read the thread first, before shooting off" and "Is the fear-driven urge to yell "AAAARRRGGGHHH! DON'T CHARGE ME!!!!!" so overwhelming that it overrides all reason and reading comprehension?"
Well, as painful as it was I did read the thread first. Listen, I own a business, and I get taxed, and am charged fees for every stinking thing that you can think of.
The worst part of any fee proposal, is once any politician gets a hold of any new source of revenue. You can forget the rational for the fee, because its going into the general pot, and up in smoke, so to speak...
It seems that no matter how many times it is stated, many people are unwilling to accept that postage/authentification/filtering systems can actually be profitable for subscribers. That's right, you could actually receive money for each unsolicited email from a stranger in your inbox. Why would you subscribe to a filtering service that wasn't beneficial in some way?
Also it seems that these same people want to portray any such system as mandatory or perhaps somehow encroaching on their rights. Give me a break! There will always be free email for those who don't want an economic-based spam-filtering system.
Finally, to claim that filtering/postage systems are technologically infeasible is pure nonsense. I coded a few such systems while in graduate school. Sure they didn't include secure authentification, but modules for this are freely available on the net.
ePostage systems are like secretaries, screening suitors of your attention. Feel free to instruct the screener exactly how to filter/charge for a bit of your time. Or... go ahead and fire the secretary if they can't provide a worthwhile service. You can always just answer the phone yourself.
The same is true of fee-based email. It isn't mandatory and you would only sign up for a service if it provided filtering that was worth the hassle.
Actually Romania, Turkey and Zambia look like they have pretty worthless currency too. Its actually pretty hard to find a full list of exchange rates without some calculator frontend.
edit number 3
I just found a really good site for currency exchange information against the US dollar
...Actually, a new protocol replacing the archaic email system? Doesn't sound like too bad an idea!
Barto
hummmm this sounds good, i am changing my vote go ms charge $0.35 per email the first reaction would be horified shock and utter distress, but within 12 hours there would be a great alternative protocall develloped my a mass consotsium of angry geeks, and it would be trademarked and copywriten with gnu so it would STAY FREE.
but seriously this is just another attempt by M$ to screw the average joe.
i have a lot of email accounts, most of which converge into my mail.app, and get about 1 piece of spam a week. gates must be missing something, because i'm sure not.
gates is looking out for #1 as always, he is disliked and the 'haters' sign him up for the dirty e-mail lists (they think he hates it) and so do the people who know him best(they know he likes it)
It seems that no matter how many times it is stated, many people are unwilling to accept that postage/authentification/filtering systems can actually be profitable for subscribers.
What I have a hard time believing is that the trouble of setting up an appropriate billing infrastructure would be worth it for a system where most people would only make a few pennies here and there.
Quote:
That's right, you could actually receive money for each unsolicited email from a stranger in your inbox. Why would you subscribe to a filtering service that wasn't beneficial in some way?
For most people, getting rid of spam is benefit enough.
Quote:
Also it seems that these same people want to portray any such system as mandatory or perhaps somehow encroaching on their rights. Give me a break! There will always be free email for those who don't want an economic-based spam-filtering system.
First of all, people have to stop thinking that spam is only a problem for spam recipients who personally don't like spam. Spam is a bandwidth and resource hog that drives up infrastructure and network administrative prices, in ways that drive up costs for everyone.
Maintaining a parallel spam-clogged free e-mail system isn't a very good approach.
Quote:
Finally, to claim that filtering/postage systems are technologically infeasible is pure nonsense. I coded a few such systems while in graduate school. Sure they didn't include secure authentification, but modules for this are freely available on the net...
The same is true of fee-based email. It isn't mandatory and you would only sign up for a service if it provided filtering that was worth the hassle.
I'm not concerned about raw technology -- yes, the kind of technology you're talking about isn't hard. It's the transitional issues, the adminstrative and billing issues, the problems of having two or more parallel e-mail systems, etc.
Think of it this way: It's one thing to develop the technology for a hydrogen powered car. It's quite another thing to convince people to buy the cars when there aren't many hydrogen fueling stations around, and hard to convince people to build hydrogen fueling stations when their aren't many hydrogen cars around.
I'm not claiming this is a very close analogy, just making the point that technological feasibility is often the least of one's concerns.
What I think would be a better option is to have a $0.01 fee to send an email, but once the message is read by the recipient, the $0.01 is refunded to the original sender. It would still eliminate spam, but it wouldn't cost average users too much (some people just don't read their email)
What I think would be a better option is to have a $0.01 fee to send an email, but once the message is read by the recipient, the $0.01 is refunded to the original sender. It would still eliminate spam, but it wouldn't cost average users too much (some people just don't read their email)
How does this solve anything? First of all, from a technical standpoint, what does it mean for an e-mail to be "read"? As far as your POP server is concerned, as soon as your e-mail client software gathers your mail, regardless of whether you actually look at the mail or not, that mail is considered to be read.
If you're depending on a client-side spam filter, like the one built into OS X's Mail, the messages it classifies as junk have already been read. The junk in your Junk folder would qualify for your $0.01 refund.
Besides, without reforms relating to access and use of SMTP servers, there's no way to enforce a plan like yours. With the needed reforms, there are better ways to deal with spam than your scheme.
What I think would be a better option is to have a $0.01 fee to send an email, but once the message is read by the recipient, the $0.01 is refunded to the original sender. It would still eliminate spam, but it wouldn't cost average users too much (some people just don't read their email)
i think this is a good scheme. from a tech standpoint it might have some issues, but stuff can always be developed to fit within a reasonable framework, and i think your framework is solid. too often people become obsessed with their perceived limits of a technology and then can't see past their perceptions to a good solution. from a business standpoint, it is the difference between an engineer and a manager
i think this is a good scheme. from a tech standpoint it might have some issues, but stuff can always be developed to fit within a reasonable framework, and i think your framework is solid. too often people become obsessed with their perceived limits of a technology and then can't see past their perceptions to a good solution. from a business standpoint, it is the difference between an engineer and a manager
anyhow, i like your idea
I still don't see what's better about hyperb0le's idea compared to the much simpler solution of charging an e-mail sender for how many total e-mails they send, read or not read by the recipient, which go over some fixed limit for free messages.
The refund-you-if-your-message-is-read incentive is all wrong. All that would do is encourage a spammer to work harder to get past spam filters, and work harder to try to fool the human at the other end that his message is something important, and not junk.
As for "the difference between an engineer and a manager" -- for every success achieved by a manager by blithely ignoring technical issues, there are plenty of wasted efforts and silly boondoggles caused by willful or ignorant dismissal of technical concerns. It can be a dangerous conceit when a manager gets it into his head that all he has to do is demand that something get done, thinking "I'll just put the pressure on and the technical folks will come up with something".
If you're going to be billing and refunding an e-mail sender, you have to have a reliable way of authenticating and authorizing that sender. You have to know who sent what, and not easily be fooled by things like easily-forged e-mail headers.
So, let's take it as a given that we can achieve this goal. Now, what's the main difference between a spammer and a regular user? Isn't the difference most easily defined by the amount of mail that gets sent, rather than the amount of mail the sender convinces a recipient to read?
Let's call billing by usage over a fixed free limit system A, and billing by usage plus refunding based on acceptance of messages system B.
Both A and B require the same technical problems to be solved as far as AAA is concerned (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting).
System A results in no sending charges at all for typical e-mail users, regardless of whether someone reads the mail they send or not.
System B results in having to modify what would otherwise normally be fixed-rate monthly billing for most customers in order to tack on some typically small, but variable, charge of a few pennies every month.
System A imposes the same burden/disincentive for large-scale bulk e-mail on everyone who would try to send such mail.
System B rewards bulk e-mail senders who manage to craft messages to slip past filters, and trick humans into opening these messages.
System A can be completely managed by the sender's ISP with no additional network traffic.
System B uses more network resources, and adds more possible points of failure, because extra receipt messages need to be sent back and forth between the recipient's ISP and the sender's ISP for acknowledging whether or not a message has been read by the recipient.
I can't see any advantages of B over A. What do you imagine those advantages are?
Comments
I think now that what is really needed is a new email protocol.
The hardest part is working out just how it would work. Something using RSA encryption or something woud be the go, but at the same time be absolutely invisible to users.
Perhaps a new format with a sort of backtrace mechanism that is "unhackable", or something...
Or better still, make it mandatory for ISPs to have spam filters for their customers. Then, not nearly enough spam could get through to customers to filter out themselves. This, of course, introduces the problem of false identification of spam, leaving some non-spam email that never gets too its intended recipient.
A few ISPs have things like this already, and others make you pay for the option, (which is sad, really), but I think the benefits will far outweigh the cons...
Opinions? m.
As soon as you start charging for email, email will vanish. Internet users, as has been displayed time and time again, will opt for a free option.
Then that new protocol will be full of spam, and you'll be back to ISP and user side filters.
Actually, a new protocol replacing the archaic email system? Doesn't sound like too bad an idea!
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
As soon as you start charging for email, email will vanish.
If you aren't charged until you start sending out something like over a thousand or so e-mails per month, why abandon the current e-mail system, which could easily remain free when used within reasonable limits?
If you abandon the slightly-modified current e-mail system because you want to send spam, who's going to have the right software to receive your spam, sent via some new protocol, except someone who wants spam?
Originally posted by Merovingian
I think this is an exciting prospect ? I'm on Microsoft's side with this, all the way.
I'm more worried about Microsoft's Internet Exploiter problem. Ok that is a pun on words, just incase, your ready to pounce on a spelling issue...
But I do wish MS would improve security issues on IE. This should be the only issue Bill Gates should be talking about, but thats sure to be found in another thread.
As far as, "Will somebody please, please read the thread first, before shooting off" and "Is the fear-driven urge to yell "AAAARRRGGGHHH! DON'T CHARGE ME!!!!!" so overwhelming that it overrides all reason and reading comprehension?"
Well, as painful as it was I did read the thread first. Listen, I own a business, and I get taxed, and am charged fees for every stinking thing that you can think of.
The worst part of any fee proposal, is once any politician gets a hold of any new source of revenue. You can forget the rational for the fee, because its going into the general pot, and up in smoke, so to speak...
Also it seems that these same people want to portray any such system as mandatory or perhaps somehow encroaching on their rights. Give me a break! There will always be free email for those who don't want an economic-based spam-filtering system.
Finally, to claim that filtering/postage systems are technologically infeasible is pure nonsense. I coded a few such systems while in graduate school. Sure they didn't include secure authentification, but modules for this are freely available on the net.
ePostage systems are like secretaries, screening suitors of your attention. Feel free to instruct the screener exactly how to filter/charge for a bit of your time. Or... go ahead and fire the secretary if they can't provide a worthwhile service. You can always just answer the phone yourself.
The same is true of fee-based email. It isn't mandatory and you would only sign up for a service if it provided filtering that was worth the hassle.
What if you live in Ghana or Ethiopa ?
Actually Romania, Turkey and Zambia look like they have pretty worthless currency too. Its actually pretty hard to find a full list of exchange rates without some calculator frontend.
edit number 3
I just found a really good site for currency exchange information against the US dollar
Treasury Reporting Rates of Exchange
interesting, or maybe Im just tired...
Originally posted by Barto
...Actually, a new protocol replacing the archaic email system? Doesn't sound like too bad an idea!
Barto
hummmm this sounds good, i am changing my vote go ms charge $0.35 per email the first reaction would be horified shock and utter distress, but within 12 hours there would be a great alternative protocall develloped my a mass consotsium of angry geeks, and it would be trademarked and copywriten with gnu so it would STAY FREE.
but seriously this is just another attempt by M$ to screw the average joe.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i have a lot of email accounts, most of which converge into my mail.app, and get about 1 piece of spam a week. gates must be missing something, because i'm sure not.
gates is looking out for #1 as always, he is disliked and the 'haters' sign him up for the dirty e-mail lists (they think he hates it) and so do the people who know him best(they know he likes it)
Originally posted by dfiler
It seems that no matter how many times it is stated, many people are unwilling to accept that postage/authentification/filtering systems can actually be profitable for subscribers.
What I have a hard time believing is that the trouble of setting up an appropriate billing infrastructure would be worth it for a system where most people would only make a few pennies here and there.
That's right, you could actually receive money for each unsolicited email from a stranger in your inbox. Why would you subscribe to a filtering service that wasn't beneficial in some way?
For most people, getting rid of spam is benefit enough.
Also it seems that these same people want to portray any such system as mandatory or perhaps somehow encroaching on their rights. Give me a break! There will always be free email for those who don't want an economic-based spam-filtering system.
First of all, people have to stop thinking that spam is only a problem for spam recipients who personally don't like spam. Spam is a bandwidth and resource hog that drives up infrastructure and network administrative prices, in ways that drive up costs for everyone.
Maintaining a parallel spam-clogged free e-mail system isn't a very good approach.
Finally, to claim that filtering/postage systems are technologically infeasible is pure nonsense. I coded a few such systems while in graduate school. Sure they didn't include secure authentification, but modules for this are freely available on the net...
The same is true of fee-based email. It isn't mandatory and you would only sign up for a service if it provided filtering that was worth the hassle.
I'm not concerned about raw technology -- yes, the kind of technology you're talking about isn't hard. It's the transitional issues, the adminstrative and billing issues, the problems of having two or more parallel e-mail systems, etc.
Think of it this way: It's one thing to develop the technology for a hydrogen powered car. It's quite another thing to convince people to buy the cars when there aren't many hydrogen fueling stations around, and hard to convince people to build hydrogen fueling stations when their aren't many hydrogen cars around.
I'm not claiming this is a very close analogy, just making the point that technological feasibility is often the least of one's concerns.
Originally posted by hyperb0le
What I think would be a better option is to have a $0.01 fee to send an email, but once the message is read by the recipient, the $0.01 is refunded to the original sender. It would still eliminate spam, but it wouldn't cost average users too much (some people just don't read their email)
How does this solve anything? First of all, from a technical standpoint, what does it mean for an e-mail to be "read"? As far as your POP server is concerned, as soon as your e-mail client software gathers your mail, regardless of whether you actually look at the mail or not, that mail is considered to be read.
If you're depending on a client-side spam filter, like the one built into OS X's Mail, the messages it classifies as junk have already been read. The junk in your Junk folder would qualify for your $0.01 refund.
Besides, without reforms relating to access and use of SMTP servers, there's no way to enforce a plan like yours. With the needed reforms, there are better ways to deal with spam than your scheme.
Originally posted by hyperb0le
What I think would be a better option is to have a $0.01 fee to send an email, but once the message is read by the recipient, the $0.01 is refunded to the original sender. It would still eliminate spam, but it wouldn't cost average users too much (some people just don't read their email)
i think this is a good scheme. from a tech standpoint it might have some issues, but stuff can always be developed to fit within a reasonable framework, and i think your framework is solid. too often people become obsessed with their perceived limits of a technology and then can't see past their perceptions to a good solution. from a business standpoint, it is the difference between an engineer and a manager
anyhow, i like your idea
Originally posted by progmac
i think this is a good scheme. from a tech standpoint it might have some issues, but stuff can always be developed to fit within a reasonable framework, and i think your framework is solid. too often people become obsessed with their perceived limits of a technology and then can't see past their perceptions to a good solution. from a business standpoint, it is the difference between an engineer and a manager
anyhow, i like your idea
I still don't see what's better about hyperb0le's idea compared to the much simpler solution of charging an e-mail sender for how many total e-mails they send, read or not read by the recipient, which go over some fixed limit for free messages.
The refund-you-if-your-message-is-read incentive is all wrong. All that would do is encourage a spammer to work harder to get past spam filters, and work harder to try to fool the human at the other end that his message is something important, and not junk.
As for "the difference between an engineer and a manager" -- for every success achieved by a manager by blithely ignoring technical issues, there are plenty of wasted efforts and silly boondoggles caused by willful or ignorant dismissal of technical concerns. It can be a dangerous conceit when a manager gets it into his head that all he has to do is demand that something get done, thinking "I'll just put the pressure on and the technical folks will come up with something".
If you're going to be billing and refunding an e-mail sender, you have to have a reliable way of authenticating and authorizing that sender. You have to know who sent what, and not easily be fooled by things like easily-forged e-mail headers.
So, let's take it as a given that we can achieve this goal. Now, what's the main difference between a spammer and a regular user? Isn't the difference most easily defined by the amount of mail that gets sent, rather than the amount of mail the sender convinces a recipient to read?
Let's call billing by usage over a fixed free limit system A, and billing by usage plus refunding based on acceptance of messages system B.
Both A and B require the same technical problems to be solved as far as AAA is concerned (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting).
System A results in no sending charges at all for typical e-mail users, regardless of whether someone reads the mail they send or not.
System B results in having to modify what would otherwise normally be fixed-rate monthly billing for most customers in order to tack on some typically small, but variable, charge of a few pennies every month.
System A imposes the same burden/disincentive for large-scale bulk e-mail on everyone who would try to send such mail.
System B rewards bulk e-mail senders who manage to craft messages to slip past filters, and trick humans into opening these messages.
System A can be completely managed by the sender's ISP with no additional network traffic.
System B uses more network resources, and adds more possible points of failure, because extra receipt messages need to be sent back and forth between the recipient's ISP and the sender's ISP for acknowledging whether or not a message has been read by the recipient.
I can't see any advantages of B over A. What do you imagine those advantages are?