Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

BRussell · Feb 5, 2006, 03:20 PM

The NY Times has an article about this.

Yahoo and AOL say the new system is a way to restore some order to e-mail, which, because of spam and worries about online scams, has become an increasingly unreliable way for companies to reach their customers, even as online transactions are becoming a crucial part of their businesses.

"The last time I checked, the postal service has a very similar system to provide different options," said Nicholas Graham, an AOL spokesman. He pointed to services like certified mail, "where you really do get assurance that if what you send is important to you, it will be delivered, and delivered in a way that is different from other mail."

Oh and they'll earn some money too.

Kevin · Feb 5, 2006, 03:23 PM

How about just charging for spam?

Mastrap · Feb 5, 2006, 03:41 PM

This has nothing to do with fighting spam and everything to do with charging people for a service that until now has been free. The Telcos are on the same track, trying to charge for fast delivery of content. Meaning google would be super fast, but a small business website would be relegated to the slow lane.

Wankers.

olePigeon · Feb 5, 2006, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

This has nothing to do with fighting spam and everything to do with charging people for a service that until now has been free. The Telcos are on the same track, trying to charge for fast delivery of content. Meaning google would be super fast, but a small business website would be relegated to the slow lane.

Wankers.

Tiered internet.

Sigh.

JoshuaZ · Feb 5, 2006, 06:11 PM

It would be really lame if that actually happened, but I imagion that this kind of thing would cause some public backlash. Especially becase we all love the freeness of e-mail.

Spam isn`t a problem for people who are not stupid.

RobOnTheCape · Feb 5, 2006, 06:12 PM

I would easily be willing to pay for email. What if it were simply a penny per. Would that deter spammers who send out millions of spams at a time.

Brass · Feb 5, 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape

I would easily be willing to pay for email. What if it were simply a penny per. Would that deter spammers who send out millions of spams at a time.

I don't think it would have much affect on Spam at all, since spammers usually send their millions of email messages using other peoples PCs.

Dork. · Feb 5, 2006, 08:20 PM

So basically, Yahoo! and AOL bring customers in by advertising their spam-fighting filters, then they turn around and sell a path around the spam filters to spammers. Am I missing something?

greenG4 · Feb 5, 2006, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

So basically, Yahoo! and AOL bring customers in by advertising their spam-fighting filters, then they turn around and sell a path around the spam filters to spammers. Am I missing something?

Nope. That pretty much the gist of it.

Kerrigan · Feb 5, 2006, 08:33 PM

eh god the intelliTXT is so distracting

d4nth3m4n · Feb 5, 2006, 08:45 PM

there's nothing new about this. how long until a company sets up "free" email services after this like what net zero tried to do with ISPs a while back?

Gamoe · Feb 5, 2006, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

This has nothing to do with fighting spam and everything to do with charging people for a service that until now has been free. The Telcos are on the same track, trying to charge for fast delivery of content. Meaning google would be super fast, but a small business website would be relegated to the slow lane.

Wankers.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Dork.

So basically, Yahoo! and AOL bring customers in by advertising their spam-fighting filters, then they turn around and sell a path around the spam filters to spammers. Am I missing something?

Good point.

Coincidentally, I just saw a tidbit about this on the news right before I saw this thread. My thoughts were about the same. I was thinking how funny it is that companies might tout this as some kind of feature when it's really a new way to charge again for something that has been included with internet access since it became available to the general public.

wdlove · Feb 6, 2006, 02:13 PM

The greed of a few are wanting to ruin it for everyone. Private individuals shouldn't have to pay.

osiris · Feb 6, 2006, 02:28 PM

The Register adds this: "Free mails may also have images and web links removed."

So does this mean that the Free email accounts will be screened and possibly censored for content? Hmmmmm. This smells rotten.

DeathToWindows · Feb 7, 2006, 01:12 PM

If you're still on AOL or similar, may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

Doofy · Feb 7, 2006, 01:26 PM

So how are they expecting this to work? Where is the payment point?

Mediaman_12 · Feb 7, 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by osiris

The Register adds this: "Free mails may also have images and web links removed."

So does this mean that the Free email accounts will be screened and possibly censored for content? Hmmmmm. This smells rotten.

The great thing with this is that is BOTH have to have the 'paid' email's (I think), so if even the (idiot) AOL user you send the mail to is on the 'paying' scheme, unless you are on it too, they will ONLY get the text part of your message.
Great!