[Athens]

How many macnners here would use a email system that cost you 1 cent per sent email and free to receive email but the catch is it only accepts mail that had a electronic postage (1cent). Why I ask this? There is a growing movement to change email into something that has a cost attached to it as a means to remove spam. Currently if some one wants to spam 1 million addresses its free to do so. Under a system that costs 1 cents per email it would add a cost to them and using the 1 million example that would work out to be $10 000.00. Personally the amount of emails I send each month would work out to costing me at most a buck a month. And the amount of time I spend trying to combat spam I would be willing to spend even more then that. Of course there are benefits for real businesses to. If a person sets there service to allow spam mail and only real businesses are sending spam mail that has a real cost for one the spam you do get is more trust worthy because you know there was a cost to send it and 2 they would have to be registered as a business in order to have sent the spam in the first place. And people that don’t want any spam wont get any. Something to think about and I just wonder how many users here would use such a system.

[TETENAL]

I would prefer using mails with digital signatures (in fact I already do use them myself). If everybody signed their mails one could just discard those who are not digitally signed (spam). Since spamming is illegal, spammers would be reluctant to include signatures that reveal their identity.

I would very much prefer this over going to a system that charges for e-mail, since it is a) cheaper and b) increases security.



Some information on how to use digitally signed e-mail with Apple's Mail program can be found here: http://joar.com/certificates/

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i have no problems with that. it would not work though because the people sending them would not migrate to the new system

[Big Mac]

1 cent messages would not really help the situation, since it would add substantial complexity to the mail system, spammers would absorb the cost, and it would be difficult to get servers on board. How would billing work with such a system? While I have heard of such ideas, I have not found any formal proposals for such a system. I believe that DomainKeys shows a lot of promise in helping to curb the amount of pure spam, but it will take awhile for it to achieve a high level of acceptance.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i have no problems with that. it would not work though because the people sending them would not migrate to the new system

Thats the wonderful part it would work. If peoples email only accepted mail with a digital postage, spamers would have no one to spam since no one would accept it.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
1 cent messages would not really help the situation, since it would add substantial complexity to the mail system, spammers would absorb the cost, and it would be difficult to get servers on board. How would billing work with such a system? I believe that DomainKeys shows a lot of promise in helping to curb the amount of pure spam, but it will take awhile for it to achieve a high level of acceptance.

For something like that to work basically the only I see it working is if all the Countries national postal companies ran it. For example all Canadian SMTP servers would be smtp.canadapost.ca and would would have to have a account with them in order to send. Second part would be ISPs servers being set to only accept email with Postage. Spam email those that pay to spam would end up with a Commerical electronic postage so ppl that dont want spam or commercial email could refuse it the same way ppl call there postal outlet and say no for getting junk mail.

Another good aspect to this is I wont get US spam and Americans wouldnt get Canadian spam. Products from Europe dont interest me LOL yet I get spam from all over the world.

[Twilly Spree]

If your email is spammed to death, get a new one.

Then don't give out that email on the web. Only to those you want to keep in touch with.

I have 4 emails. One hotmail, one gmail, one .mac and one normal POP. I've had the hotmail and gmail for about a year and .mac for 2 years and the POP for 5 years. I use the gmail for spam. I use the hotmail for chat (MSN) and .mac I don't really use. Gmail filters the spam I get effectively. I get 2-3 spams per month there. I don't get any spam on the hotmail account, get 2-3 spams on .mac and no spam on my POP account.

If I have to give out my email on the web for registration or something I don't do so lightly. If I do, I use the gmail account.

For me spam is not an issue. If people think a bit before they give out their email then they'd get far less spam, if any.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Athens:
For something like that to work basically the only I see it working is if all the Countries national postal companies ran it. For example all Canadian SMTP servers would be smtp.canadapost.ca and would would have to have a account with them in order to send. Second part would be ISPs servers being set to only accept email with Postage. Spam email those that pay to spam would end up with a Commerical electronic postage so ppl that dont want spam or commercial email could refuse it the same way ppl call there postal outlet and say no for getting junk mail.

Another good aspect to this is I wont get US spam and Americans wouldnt get Canadian spam. Products from Europe dont interest me LOL yet I get spam from all over the world.

It would never work then, Athens. Service providers large and small would not go for a centralized system. Remember, this is the Internet we're talking about.

[WhaMe]

I really doubt that charging for sending e-mail would effect many spammers. About 80% of the mail that I receive through the U.S. Postal Service is unsolicited junk mail; 5-10 credit card offers a week, coupons, sales flyers, catalogs from companies (and companies that they partner with) from whom I may have order from only once, years ago, ect.. I think that if companies are willing to spend money on direct mail, they will definitely be willing to spend money on spam.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
If your email is spammed to death, get a new one.

Then don't give out that email on the web. Only to those you want to keep in touch with.

I have 4 emails. One hotmail, one gmail, one .mac and one normal POP. I've had the hotmail and gmail for about a year and .mac for 2 years and the POP for 5 years. I use the gmail for spam. I use the hotmail for chat (MSN) and .mac I don't really use. Gmail filters the spam I get effectively. I get 2-3 spams per month there. I don't get any spam on the hotmail account, get 2-3 spams on .mac and no spam on my POP account.

If I have to give out my email on the web for registration or something I don't do so lightly. If I do, I use the gmail account.

For me spam is not an issue. If people think a bit before they give out their email then they'd get far less spam, if any.

That dosent help my business email address which is open on my site for all to see, I cant just hide that.

[Athens]

Originally posted by WhaMe:
I really doubt that charging for sending e-mail would effect many spammers. About 80% of the mail that I receive through the U.S. Postal Service is unsolicited junk mail; 5-10 credit card offers a week, coupons, sales flyers, catalogs from companies (and companies that they partner with) from whom I may have order from only once, years ago, ect.. I think that if companies are willing to spend money on direct mail, they will definitely be willing to spend money on spam.

Cant you tell your postal service that you dont want junk mail? Here if you leave a note on your box saying no junk mail you get added to the no junk mail list. On a system like the one I was talking about that would allow you to escape the spam

Ya a central system would have its down sides too.

[Athens]

Regular US mail is a completely open system, where anyone can send a piece of mail to anyone else, without a return address, or with a false one. One of the reasons regular junk mail isn’t as annoying as spam is because of the variable cost associated with sending physical mail. Junk mailers will simply not send out a campaign unless their projected response rate is high enough to justify the cost of sending the mail. Since junk e-mail is available at zero variable cost to spammers, they can sell their services to unscrupulous organizations at far lower rates than physical mail, making spam campaigns far more cost effective. Thus the average person probably gets a lot more spam – and of a far more graphic nature, due the anonymous benefits of Internet commerce – than they get junk mail.

A snip about the Yahoo domain keys and this guys opinion on it

http://shumans.com/articles/000036.php

[Amorya]

I run web sites with message boards. They have (optional) functionality to do things like email you when a thread is updated, or when you have a new private message. If this system were standard, I would have to charge in advance for all the mails I send... and since I'd charge through paypal, it'd cost more than 1¢ per mail to my users.

I already pay a lot for server bandwidth for a site that I make no money off. I'm not about to put more cost in to make things nice for my users, without getting something back. And since a verified email account is required to become a member (to make sure you're not spamming my site), then it'd work out the same as charging membership!

I imagine lots of other sites would be the same.


Amorya

[Big Mac]

Athens: The article you point to concerning Domain Keys was written more than two years ago, before the technology was even released. The author's assumption about the efficacy of legislation is unfounded, and his analysis of the technology is totally off-base. Take a look some more recent articles on the subject, including Slashdot coverage, and you'll see what I mean.

Amorya: In the informal proposals I have read on the subject of either CPU-credit or micro-fee systems (like the one Athens is describing), there are allowances for list messages and the like. Even then, such a system does not seem very feasible.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Amorya:
I run web sites with message boards. They have (optional) functionality to do things like email you when a thread is updated, or when you have a new private message. If this system were standard, I would have to charge in advance for all the mails I send... and since I'd charge through paypal, it'd cost more than 1¢ per mail to my users.

I already pay a lot for server bandwidth for a site that I make no money off. I'm not about to put more cost in to make things nice for my users, without getting something back. And since a verified email account is required to become a member (to make sure you're not spamming my site), then it'd work out the same as charging membership!

I imagine lots of other sites would be the same.


Amorya

A fix for that is users setting there account to allow from this domain no digital postage.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Athens:
If peoples email only accepted mail with a digital postage, spamers would have no one to spam since no one would accept it.

"Postage" is a digital signature added by the "post office" (the e-mail provider) that certifies that the sender owns a credit card (to pay the postage). That's fine to prevent spam since spammers don't want to reveal their identity, but the "pay per mail" part is unnecessary. If people only accepted mail that was digitally signed, the spam problem would be solved. And that's technology that is available today. We don't need "national e-mail centres" and excessive fees on e-mail.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
The article you point to concerning Domain Keys was written more than two years ago, before the technology was even released. The author's assumption about the efficacy of legislation is unfounded, and his analysis of the technology is totally off-base. Take a look some more recent articles on the subject, including Slashdot coverage, and you'll see what I mean.

Can you give me a link to slashdot? Because I never herd of it until now and my Server Admin guy who works at Netnations never herd of it before either.

I just added SPF records to all my servers to help with spoofed emails

[Athens]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
"Postage" is a digital signature added by the "post office" (the e-mail provider) that certifies that the sender owns a credit card (to pay the postage). That's fine to prevent spam since spammers don't want to reveal their identity, but the "pay per mail" part is unnecessary. If people only accepted mail that was digitally signed, the spam problem would be solved. And that's technology that is available today. We don't need "national e-mail centres" and excessive fees on e-mail.

But I could have sworn Digital Cirtificates are needed for that, and they are NOT cheap

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Athens:
But I could have sworn Digital Cirtificates are needed for that, and they are NOT cheap

€62 pa. But they will become much cheaper as they become more common. Apple could provide them with .Mac for example, as they can already confirm identity due to the credit card.

[Big Mac]

Ironically, I really dislike SPF from a technological standpoint. DomainKeys really seems to be the best thing out there. Slashdot is News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. Here are some articles discussing DomainKeys:

Yahoo Submits DomainKeys Draft

Gmail begins signing emails with DomainKeys

Yahoo Mail now using DomainKeys

Originally posted by Athens:
But I could have sworn Digital Cirtificates are needed for that, and they are NOT cheap

You can get free email certificates from Thawte, for example. But you have to jump through hoops to get it configured, and I was never able to reliably get my Thawte personal certificate to work with any Mac mail client. I was once able to get it to go into the Keychain successfully and to work in Mail, but after that it refused to download properly no matter what I tried. That's a great idea Tetenal - it would be a wonderful extra for Apple to provide certificates through .Mac. Unfortunately, we all know that Apple is a bit stingy.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Ironically, I really dislike SPF from a technological standpoint. DomainKeys really seems to be the best thing out there. Slashdot is News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. Here are some articles discussing DomainKeys:

Yahoo Submits DomainKeys Draft

Gmail begins signing emails with DomainKeys

Yahoo Mail now using DomainKeys


You can get free email certificates from Thawte, for example. But you have to jump through hoops to get it configured, and I was never able to reliably get my Thawte personal certificate to work with any Mac mail client. I was once able to get it to go into the Keychain successfully and to work in Mail, but after that it refused to download properly no matter what I tried.

If domainkeys arnt to hard to setup I'll prob upgrade my servers with that too. I'll check the links later at home DAM i wish I could stay away LOL im so late in my work right now.

[faragbre967]

The only thing a pay/email system would do is give us well-designed spam. How much does a company pay to run a TV commercial, few hundred dollars? Maybe a thousand? In a $0.01 / email system that's 30,000 people at the least. We finally would stop getting things like "phr34ky \/\/ives gust phor u!!" but we would still get spam.

[Athens]

Originally posted by faragbre967:
The only thing a pay/email system would do is give us well-designed spam. How much does a company pay to run a TV commercial, few hundred dollars? Maybe a thousand? In a $0.01 / email system that's 30,000 people at the least. We finally would stop getting things like "phr34ky \/\/ives gust phor u!!" but we would still get spam.

Real spam that could be trusted more at least. I wouldnt buy anything from phr34ky@whatever.com and with it real names and addresses to block too.

[faragbre967]

Originally posted by Athens:
Real spam that could be trusted more at least. I wouldnt buy anything from phr34ky@whatever.com and with it real names and addresses to block too.

Very true. I don't understand who buys things from those poorly spelled cheap Viagra ads. Somebody does though, cause I keep getting them.

[d4nth3m4n]

screw that idea. i pay to mail things USPS, and i still get junk mail.

i like my internet free, thank you.

[Buckaroo]

1 cent is a really bad idea. It's a tax, and it gives them a foot in the door to raise it each year until it's up to the same cost of a real letter.

Before they are finished, it'll cost a 37 cents to send each email.

Bad idea.

The best solution is to never ever respond to a spam email. Even if it's something you might want. Trash it, it's a scam.

[parallax]

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
screw that idea. i pay to mail things USPS, and i still get junk mail.

i like my internet free, thank you.

Agreed.

Twilly: That's not necessarily a perfect solution. I'm subscribed to at least 30 mailing lists here and whether I like it or not, a lot of those can be addressed by anyone. That's where the majority of my spam comes from.

An interesting idea I heard: it costs $xx for a person I haven't entered as somebody I know to send mail to /my/ server, and that amount is only charged if I don't read the mail.

Logistics aside, it'd cut down on unsolicited mail, spam or otherwise, and keep my internet arbitrarily free.

And of course, considering logistics, I'm wary of anything involving money transfer on the internet.

[Randman]

Athens, why don't you edit a post rather than posting three times in a row?

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
If your email is spammed to death, get a new one.

Then don't give out that email on the web. Only to those you want to keep in touch with.

I have 4 emails. One hotmail, one gmail, one .mac and one normal POP. I've had the hotmail and gmail for about a year and .mac for 2 years and the POP for 5 years. I use the gmail for spam. I use the hotmail for chat (MSN) and .mac I don't really use. Gmail filters the spam I get effectively. I get 2-3 spams per month there. I don't get any spam on the hotmail account, get 2-3 spams on .mac and no spam on my POP account.

If I have to give out my email on the web for registration or something I don't do so lightly. If I do, I use the gmail account.

For me spam is not an issue. If people think a bit before they give out their email then they'd get far less spam, if any.

It doesn't matter. Eventually the account will be compromised.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
It doesn't matter. Eventually the account will be compromised.

It hasn't happened yet. For practical reasons guessing email adresses is impossible so as long as you don't give it out to untrustworthy websites, open mail lists etc. it will not be compromised. It has worked for YEARS for me.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
It hasn't happened yet. For practical reasons guessing email adresses is impossible so as long as you don't give it out to untrustworthy websites, open mail lists etc. it will not be compromised. It has worked for YEARS for me.

After 4 years my private email address was compromised by friends and fellow students.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by parallax:
Agreed.

Twilly: That's not necessarily a perfect solution. I'm subscribed to at least 30 mailing lists here and whether I like it or not, a lot of those can be addressed by anyone. That's where the majority of my spam comes from.

An interesting idea I heard: it costs $xx for a person I haven't entered as somebody I know to send mail to /my/ server, and that amount is only charged if I don't read the mail.

Logistics aside, it'd cut down on unsolicited mail, spam or otherwise, and keep my internet arbitrarily free.

And of course, considering logistics, I'm wary of anything involving money transfer on the internet.

I doubt that would work. White listing is problematic unless you have a very small circle of trusted addresses. And simply sending messages that people do not find interesting enough to click on should not automatically constitute spamming. An unspecified, variable level of monetary risk to the sender, however small, is not a desirable system.

[el chupacabra]

Athens you would get junk mail still. I don't think 10,000 dollars per million messages would even phase the spammers. Remember its already costing them money to hire people to search for, collect, and send email. a penny more isn't going to do much. They make enough money spamming to cover that cost.

[tooki]

The only reason we have spam is because there is demand for email advertising. Attempting to cut off the spammers (stop supply) won't work because the demand is still there.

Instead, we need to stop the demand by making it illegal for a company to hire a spammer or spam themselves. So rather than sue John the spammer, we should sue Joe who sells the Viagra. It's easy for John to remain anonymous, but Joe has to maintain some way for people to contact him, or else people wouldn't be able to order!

Cutting off the demand for spam services would by necessity reduce the supply, because without paying customers, the spammers are out of business.


Why is it I'm the only person I've ever heard suggest this? I'm not even an economist, but it makes perfect sense...

Comments?

tooki

[Athens]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
It hasn't happened yet. For practical reasons guessing email adresses is impossible so as long as you don't give it out to untrustworthy websites, open mail lists etc. it will not be compromised. It has worked for YEARS for me.

Ya well use your email on a Windows Machine, spyware is the biggest stealer of private email addresses

[Athens]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Athens you would get junk mail still. I don't think 10,000 dollars per million messages would even phase the spammers. Remember its already costing them money to hire people to search for, collect, and send email. a penny more isn't going to do much. They make enough money spamming to cover that cost.

First I can get a list of 2 million email accounts via Kazaa, second there are lots of basement spammers not companies that setup a server for the sole purpose to get peoples credit card numbers or to direct you to a site or to spread a virus. For every real spam email I get that is a real company or product I get about 100 bogus ones trying to get cc, virus, or spaming a site. Basement yahoos wouldnt spend 10's of thousands of dollars to get ppl to go to there site or to spread a virus and the ones that are trying to get your credit card well the fact you would have to register makes that a bad idea for them too. That leaves real spam of real products and services and much much less.

[TheJoshu]

I like not paying for e-mail.

I also like that my 10 year old brother has access to e-mail on his own, without having to beg his parents for an allowance that he can spend on it.

I can deal with spam. Let's keep one thing in this world unregulated.

[mitchell_pgh]

I think digital signatures is the best way. Basically it does the same thing but is free.

[olePigeon]

I'd say make it free, but then charge bulk postage. 50 emails a day for free, then 1 cent for every email after.

If you're doing more than 50 emails a day you're probably employed and the businesses can take up the tab.

[parallax]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
I doubt that would work. White listing is problematic unless you have a very small circle of trusted addresses. And simply sending messages that people do not find interesting enough to click on should not automatically constitute spamming. An unspecified, variable level of monetary risk to the sender, however small, is not a desirable system.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It wouldn't be an unspecified, variable amount of money, just a standard, published amount.

Messages from a list or person that I haven't whitelisted that are so uninteresting I don't care to even click them? I consider that spam. :-)

[dampeoples]

I'd pay a penny a message
I might be out of a nickel a month

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by dampeoples:
I'd pay a penny a message
I might be out of a nickel a month

wow. i send at least 10 per day, and that's just with normal traffic. were it not for im it would be much more...

[im_noahselby]

I feel that the internet canvas is slowly changing and many here are scared of this change. What once was free, is free no more. Pay-for-use services are becoming the trend, and show no signs of slowing down. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to pay 1¢ for sending an e-mail. Whether or not this is feasible, or even realistic, I don't know, but it's an interesting possibility and if it were to happen I would embrace it warmly.

One thing is for sure: changes need to happen. The current system in place is a complete mess and there are too many people who are abusing it for their own selfish gain.

Now I'm going to read up on this.. :-)

Noah

[Buckaroo]

Be careful what you wish for. Before long you'll be charged for each instant message and each web page that you go to. And all because of spammers. I don't want to pay for anything because of the illegal activities of a few.



The solution. Make it legal to hang all spammers. Place huge multi million dollar fines on the companies that hire the spammers.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
Be careful what you wish for. Before long you'll be charged for each instant message and each web page that you go to. And all because of spammers. I don't want to pay for anything because of the illegal activities of a few.



The solution. Make it legal to hang all spammers. Place huge multi million dollar fines on the companies that hire the spammers.

Thats not going to happen, if people had to pay to go to a web site people wouldnt go unless its something like a News Paper that has a product that they sell and for the same content they want you to subscibe. Most sites make money off of advertisement or direct sales. Same for the instant messengers, they added ads to make money and if you had to pay to use it people would not use it. Neither of those are problematic with abuse. Email on the other hand is problematic and just to easy to abuse.

[Eriamjh]

I'd pay a penny for each email... as long as the $50 each month I pay for cable modem goes towards my first 5,000 emails each month. Which means I don't pay a penny unless I send more than 5,000 emails (which I don't).

[Athens]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
I'd pay a penny for each email... as long as the $50 each month I pay for cable modem goes towards my first 5,000 emails each month. Which means I don't pay a penny unless I send more than 5,000 emails (which I don't).

I think that would work too, but there wouldnt be any more free webmail like hotmail under such a system

[Amorya]

Originally posted by Athens:
I think that would work too, but there wouldnt be any more free webmail like hotmail under such a system

There would probably be companies that'd eat the cost of your mails in order to advertise. Just like they eat the running costs of free email as it is. There would just be fewer - but someone would do it!

Amorya

[Athens]

Originally posted by Amorya:
There would probably be companies that'd eat the cost of your mails in order to advertise. Just like they eat the running costs of free email as it is. There would just be fewer - but someone would do it!

Amorya

Or limit how many you can send per day but ya your right

[cpt kangarooski]

tooki--

Instead, we need to stop the demand by making it illegal for a company to hire a spammer or spam themselves. So rather than sue John the spammer, we should sue Joe who sells the Viagra. It's easy for John to remain anonymous, but Joe has to maintain some way for people to contact him, or else people wouldn't be able to order!

Perhaps because a blanket ban on spam would be illegal in the US, and possibly elsewhere?

Personally, I'd rather have to put up with spam than have the net become more centralized and regulated. Of the two, spam is by far the lesser concern.