e-mail stamps
So how bad is spam on your computer? Well MS thinks its so bad that you should start buying stamps or solving puzzles to send your e-mail.
The story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne....ap/index.html
I'd like to hear other's opinions, but Spam is not that big of a problem for me that I would ever consider doing this. One o f my e-mail accounts probably gets 30 spam messages a day, but Mail sends them to oblivion and does a very good job of it. I have to delete maybe 3 messages a day (about 80% virus related e-mail) from my in-box. I can live with that. I don't like the idea of having to pay or work to send and recieve e-mail.
The story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne....ap/index.html
I'd like to hear other's opinions, but Spam is not that big of a problem for me that I would ever consider doing this. One o f my e-mail accounts probably gets 30 spam messages a day, but Mail sends them to oblivion and does a very good job of it. I have to delete maybe 3 messages a day (about 80% virus related e-mail) from my in-box. I can live with that. I don't like the idea of having to pay or work to send and recieve e-mail.
Comments
my mail.app account never gets any spam, but it's a fairly new account, so I can't really say, I've only given it to a handful of friends.
something high enough to take into account mailing lists, but low enough to exclude spammers like...maybe 1000 emails a month.
dya think that could work?
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Maybe an ISP email limit?
something high enough to take into account mailing lists, but low enough to exclude spammers like...maybe 1000 emails a month.
dya think that could work?
Nope, wouldn't work.
Spammers would just set up multiple accounts or get buddy-buddy with the ISP. There are still third-tier ISPs out there that would let them through.
If not that, spammers can always go overseas (as some already do). Even Microsoft can't tax the whole world.
Then we have the legit organizations that send lots of mail -- legit organizations that are nonprofit and could not afford such a tax. What about organizations such as SourceForge? What about free communities such as AppleInsider*?
There are too many reasons why taxes like this simply cannot work.
* Granted, this isn't the best example since our evil overlords line their pocket with our banner revenue...
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Maybe an ISP email limit?
something high enough to take into account mailing lists, but low enough to exclude spammers like...maybe 1000 emails a month.
dya think that could work?
it needs to be an hr. rate, say...30 emails per hr., it will catch bots a lot faster than a monthly limit
and realy, show of hands, who sends more than 30 emails per hr.?
people that legitimately may need to send +30 emails in one or many bulk emails(for various groups)
but then again, it could all be one message just sent to 50 addresses, and it would still count as 1 email...hmmm..I'm not familiar enough with how SPAM senders work..
wma vs. aac
=
ms email stamps vs. apple's superior spam blocking
it's even worse in canada, where their privatized postal system works for a profit, and will actually send junk mail with more reliability than actual mail (having seen the system there "work" for five years, i will never ever while-i-still-have-breath vote for a privatized postal system -- not when i had to pick up a xmas present from the backroom of a 7-11).
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
it's not THAT dumb, because the numbers are different, email lets spammers send MILLIONS of spam emails out all the time. If every-one of those emails cost $.01, they would be out of money faster than you could say "but they make their money from all that spam"
well, call me crazy, but it seems to be taxing the majority using the system correctly for the minority who are abusing it. i can never support a system like that. at least not now, when i don't get the impression that we've tried hard enough with other solutions -- and no, the "roll your own filter" recommendations don't cut it with me. yeah, crime is bad, but that doesn't mean that if i don't install burglar bars then i deserve someone breaking into my home. (okay, that analogy might have some holes in it, but you get the idea)
and it might decrease the amount, but not the type nor the regularity. instead of ten "increase your penis" messages, you might get one or two. when the point is to stop them altogether.
some might counter with "spam will never go away, so we have to take what we can get", but i just see that as just utterly defeatist. we are close enough to the birth of this communications medium to actually secure it better first. if those efforts fail, then maybe we can try something else.
bill's just throwing up his hands and going "well, we're out of ideas, and we've got enough problems on our hands with other security issues, so why not plant the seed that the gov't needs to tax e-mails." plus, call me a cynic, but i know in the back of his mind he's think "and maybe i can supply microsoft passport-driven authentication servers to get a penny on the dollar!"
(edit: and that's not just due to inflation, but also to competitors -- fedex, ups, e-mail -- and higher processing costs. e-mail will only get bigger and more global. plus, my damn isp bill is pretty high as it is. $600 per year for dsl (i could get it cheaper, but my wife wants to use a different long distance carrier -- yet she complains when the bill arrives. sheesh.) you can't tell me all that money is going just to maintain the system "as is". i am positive that some of the massive profit the isp's make could be used to, maybe, just maybe, curb the spam problems at their respective sources.
ah, somedays i'm disgusted with the entire population for allowing itself to get nickeled and dimed to death because a few people higher up hope you won't notice. then when some of us do notice, we're so few that we carry no weight because no one else cares. phooey.)
eStamps would only work if you disallowed non-stamped emails but that means knifing standard protocols.
Let's break up the spam issue:
- Automated mass mailing
- Foreign ISPs with lower, if any, policy enforcement
- Fake accounts, fake domains
- Fraudulent links in the message body
Any others?
Okay, a lot of this can be curbed by authenticating senders ([email protected] vs. <random_characters>@isp.com). Another is communicating back to the SMTP gateway, meaning a recipient marking their emails as junk shouldn't just inform their client filters and get reported back to the sender's gateway.
Screed
Originally posted by sCreeD
OT comment: notice how Bill Gates, Billion Dollar 'Innovator,' gets his ideas from old technology. Stamps! It worked for our forefathers, it'll work for the kids. Oh and MS will profit when Exchange handles the billing logistics... for a fee.
even better, you know what would REALLY curb spammers? if you had to burn your message onto cd and have a courier deliver it by hand! wait, where have i heard that before... oh yeah, it was called the PONY F'N EXPRESS!
PROGRESS!
Screed
ps, this reply cost a penny
And any new system that replaces email will, unless it is also free, never gain traction. People simply EXPECT email to be free... unlike music sharing email is already a reliable, corporate system so you can't use the iTunes argument either.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
I've said it before and I'll say it now. The moment people have to pay for email is the moment people switch to a different system.
And any new system that replaces email will, unless it is also free, never gain traction. People simply EXPECT email to be free... unlike music sharing email is already a reliable, corporate system so you can't use the iTunes argument either.
Ditto.
Okay, I just thought of this, so much thought hasn't gone into it. But I propose the current email system with a couple of improvements, (which may or may not be easy to implement).
The WWW works with a few DNS machines around the place, which convert www.domain_name.com and the like into IP addresses. Why can't the same be done for electronic mail? i.e. You must register your email address with a DNS like authority, and every time an email is sent, (and to a lesser extent: received), the authenticity of the sender is determined. If the authenticity is determined to be false, the email is stopped in its tracks, and further mail from that address is destroyed, while the mail address is not considered authentic.
It sounds a bit far fetched, but the system will ensure the monetary freedom. Hell, 40 years ago, a world wide network of computers throughout the planet would have sounded improbable.
My $0.02. m.
in the latter case your incoming filter would reject everything (or quarantine and flag) not from an authenticated sender. this might serve 'family-only' users, but would seriously limit the value of email for corporate websites from ebay and beyond.
in the former case, the digital signature system offers some useful benefits to complement fraud prevention and identity theft, but the idea of a government agency tracking users or hacking the central repository to access copies of dissident email keys borders on the orwellian
add to that the fact the the "Email Tax" is by now an established urban legend...
Originally posted by Merovingian
The WWW works with a few DNS machines around the place, which convert www.domain_name.com and the like into IP addresses. Why can't the same be done for electronic mail? i.e. You must register your email address with a DNS like authority, and every time an email is sent, (and to a lesser extent: received), the authenticity of the sender is determined. If the authenticity is determined to be false, the email is stopped in its tracks, and further mail from that address is destroyed, while the mail address is not considered authentic.
Yahoo is currently working on such a system