"Not Free" Email

As we all know, spam exists because it is possible to send out millions of messages with virtually no cost.

It has long occurred to me that one solution is to develop a way that there is a very small charge PER email one sends - and this would be a mandatory charge - globally - though probably differing in amount.

This annual charge for legitimate users would probably be in the range of what one is paying for anti-spam software anyhow. There could also be a legitimate mechanism for 'real' people to even be refunded.

But this would prevent the sending of millions of emails.

And if someone hacks into THAT system there would be none of the present legal problems of free speech, holes in the law, etc. The hacker would be straight out STEALING! And since we all know about the poor kid that goes to jail for 15 years for stealing a chicken - with laws NOW on the books - it would hardly be difficult to get prosecutions of widescale theft re email transmission.

In any case - the preventive nature of the system would go a long way to reducing the present ridiculoous flow.

I have heard that some have been talking about such a system - but have not found any references - anyone aware?

 

Hello robfwoods,

Your idea has been bandied about the internet for years, but at leat two considerations have stopped implemantation of anything like it:

Paying money for e-mail goes against the grain of most users, and the question of who collects the money and how used.

Lately I don't see Spam rants, either the problem is under some control, or people have given.

I know from my own experience that since my ISP has taken steps to control Spam - in my case assigning unfamiliar e-mail to a seperate category, and other filtering options, I don't get bothered by Spam.

If I look at other ISP's, they do the same nowadays.

Regards - Charles

 

Maybe we live on different planets - everyone I talk to is telling me it's become totally unmanageable - my own spam has gone thru the roof - I was just away for a week and came back to 2000 emails - 50 of which were legit.

(Please note - the amount of spam you get is dependent on whether you or the company you have - has email addresses on the net - or even DID - as it is long too late to change to Joe.Blow (at) web.com because the spiders can go to web history 10 years old.)

The idea of free email is fine - and should be continued - BASICALLY - I am really tallking about microparts of currency units so the millions cannot be sent out by single spammers. And the environment with which the internet was basically born with in 'about 1995' - when it started to take off - are decidely different - there really was no spam until several years later - so à la Dylan - the times are achangin'

Anyhow as I said there would be nothing more involved than the cost of what people are paying annually already for anti-spam software.

And the other BIG thing is that it changes a hacking offense to STEALING - what would be a major breakthru for prosecutors.

(And the money is collected by the ISP who can even give it back to you)

 

I concurr with charles' comments. To have a fee per e-mail goes against the openness of the internet, would be hard to collect (who, when, where?) and there would be much dispute on what to do with the money. The users of the internet should be pressuring their ISP's to implement anti-spam filters at the ISP server level. My ISP in Canada, Telus, offers a free spam filter, with the options to:

1. Not filter any spam
2. Tag spam and sent it to a special "spam" folder on my computer.
3. Delete spam at the ISP server level so I don't even see it.

I have the option of turning the filter off/on as I choose.

I choose #3 and only get one or two per day, if that, that sneak by the filter. These I forward back to Telus, unopened, for them to add to the spam filter database.

Works for me.

 

It would seem you folks do not have your email addresses on the web - and also never have had - except in very insignificant ways.

Spam 'filters' are basically useless for people that have or have had their addresses on the web - the people I know - and me - that are also in the business world have tried every type of filter going - and I posted my post after having just finished a long conversation of a chief technical person at an ISP wjo said the spam situation was becoming hopeless

By the way - if email etc is supposed to be 'free' (the ingrained 'principle') - how is it that most of the world is paying Norton Security, F-Secire etc. some 50-100 US/Euro per year for their email )that is - the possibility to use the web without crashing with viruses or being spam inundated etc.)? My suggestion is that YOUR ISP (why do you both KEEP asking who gets the money?) gets something like that Norton sum per year and can even deduct it from your connection fee (you are not connected for free are you? - most evryone is paying 25 US/Euro and up PER MONTH for broadband)

I certainly do not know the technology that can be used but ISP's could control it - and the bottom line is to stop the possibility to send 5 million emails for nothing from one sender.

 

Maybe we could post a bounty? Encourage some disgruntled ex-employees to identify who the spammers are. But---Who would pay the bounty? Who would prosecute? It's just a thought.

 

Glad Arie and others seem to be able to get spam-free email.

(The comments about hijacked computers indeed sets an obstacle for any 'payment' system)

One of the problems with filters is that there is stricter legislation in the EU as to the intrusiveness of filters which indeed compromise privacy - as the filters are basically 'reading' the email.

I respect this attitude (interesting that the EU is stronger on 'privacy' than the US) and so keep trying to think of an avenue to make the spammer think twice.

Frankly I am disturbed that there is little general enthusiasm for actually going after the culprits - more on how to put more and more locks on your doors - like a downtown American city apartment - where you need 53 keys to get into your house.

 

robfwoods,

The bottom line is spam is not going away anytime soon. Even if the government(s) were to throw some legislation at the problem, it's not going away.
There are steps you can take to reduce your 'personal' spam. Here is some good basic information to get you started... The Spam Primer.

B

 

Spam, in reality, can be controlled if aware of the problem when you open your account up from the beginning. I have several mail accounts and if someone asks for an address (especially a business) I never give them my main account. My main account (pop3 account) is for family and friends and it is always clean and never needs a spam filter of any kind. My web based account, at yahoo, is one where I use if I'm not concerned with spam. If a problem starts and it gets out of hand, I can just dump it and start a new one, which I'm in the process of doing through gmail. Currently my yahoo account is getting 10,000/month, a little beyond the capability of that server without paying for more protection.

 

Very nice to know that spam is now a total non-issue -

Yes - that is a friendly, sarcastic comment (if such can be )

The Spam Primer is very much welcome as info material - though was familiar with much of it.

My point continues to be - why is the onus on the world to filter out these crudheads? As I have said - filetering is not as permissible in EU where private privacy seems to be - interestingly enough - more of an issue than in the US days of Cheney & Co.

I use Yahoo also very much - when travelling - and the anomalies of what is judged as spam and what is not - is messed up over and over.

My amazement continues to be - why is the system set up to be in favor of those setting out MILLIONS of emails from one address? - and not seeking ways to set up a deterrent for these clowns. It is not only a question of crass commercialism - but clearly much of the spam is a carrier of malicious viruses, etc.

I made a stab at a 'payment' system - triggering legal prosecution via 'stealing' - maybe there are other ways to locate existing legislation to be triggered.

Let's not think that the blame belongs on some Chinese 'entrepreneur' - or an ambitious chap on a South Pacific island - the culprits behind the spam are sitting behind the wheel of a luxury car on a US or EU motorway at this very moment - and these 3rd world spam sites are only tools under their control. They can be tracked down - so why not?

 

So can it really be that no one has any ideas - or there are no ideas running around - about how spam can be - at least partially - knocked off at the source (technically and/or legally) - rather than users having to incorporate various levels of filters?