Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

scaught · Aug 6, 2003, 01:08 PM

i think that since spam emailing is free, thats obviously a large reason why is so prolific. if you were to charge a dime an email or something, alot of these companies probably couldnt make enough money to cover the costs. look at the junk mail you get at your house. last i checked i didnt get a bunch of mail from penis cream companies. just large companies who can afford bulk mail advertising.

okay. maybe youd get some small amount of spam, but surely not as much as you get now.

and another thing, why cant my ISP filter all this ****? wouldnt it be in their best interest to stop all this crap to alleviate the load on their servers?

Phanguye · Aug 6, 2003, 01:10 PM

i probably send about 100 emails a day at work, so no i wouldnt pay for email, the real problem is smtp anyway

Paco500 · Aug 6, 2003, 01:11 PM

If it was truly effective, I would not have a problem paying to send email. $.10 is too much though. I think even $.001 would be enough to put a stop to most spammers.

euphras · Aug 6, 2003, 01:17 PM

Quote": and another thing, why cant my ISP filter all this ****? wouldnt it be in their best interest to stop all this crap to alleviate the load on their servers?"

I thinks some ASCI encoded letters and one or two inserted links don�t produce much traffic (even when send million fold) compared to .mp3, .mpg and .avi file sharing and the like.

Fyre4ce · Aug 6, 2003, 01:18 PM

I would go broke. I sent about 2000 emails per year and recieve about 5000.

Fyre4ce · Aug 6, 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Phanguye:
i probably send about 100 emails a day at work, so no i wouldnt pay for email, the real problem is smtp anyway

You send 100 emails per day? Damn that's a lot.

ambush · Aug 6, 2003, 01:20 PM

This is just not possible.

Key word: not possible.

Unless we're talking about a complete rewrite of the email standards, etc etc.

And I don't wanna pay for emails. The Internet is cool as it is right now, decentralized, anarchic.

The Mick · Aug 6, 2003, 01:21 PM

I already pay $40 per month to send emails via my cable modem service. Nobody sends email for free, there's just no limits to the number they can send. This is the model Bill Gates wants to move to, charging for emails to reduce spam.

BrunoBruin · Aug 6, 2003, 01:22 PM

I'd rather keep e-mail free. Much as I hate to give props to Microsoft, the spam filter in Entourage works amazingly well. I have the sensitivity set one level below the top, and it's very rare that anything gets through. I check my trash every so often just in case it caught something that it shouldn't have, but overall I'm happy with it. I get more junk mail at home now than spam at work.

sniffer · Aug 6, 2003, 01:23 PM

If someone wants to pay a decent sum for sorting the mail, I could do it for you. Just PM me.

Phanguye · Aug 6, 2003, 01:24 PM

all we need is a new version of smtp that will be based on a non-trust based model... that will stop it

oh yea and the reason i send 100 emails a day is because i am a spammer... he he jk

BrunoBruin · Aug 6, 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Phanguye:
oh yea and the reason i send 100 emails a day is because i am a spammer... he he jk

100 e-mails a day doesn't qualify you as a spammer... unless you're sending them all to the same person.

IUJHJSDHE · Aug 6, 2003, 01:33 PM

No because I am not getting spam in the first place

willed · Aug 6, 2003, 01:37 PM

Mail.app filters well enough for me.

icruise · Aug 6, 2003, 01:41 PM

Yeah, I don't know whether it is because I am very cautious about giving my email out or because of Mac.com's server-side spam filtering, but I get NO spam on either of my Mac.com accounts. My yahoo mail account (which is what I use for all e-commerce and the like) gets 10-20 a day.

Sherwin · Aug 6, 2003, 01:42 PM

What spam?

I never get spam.

So, any attempt by ISPs to charge me for sending email to solve a problem that other people have would be less than welcome here.

The simple solution to spam could possibly be that all ISPs be banned from offering POP3 collection (POP3 was never meant for anything other than local network collection anyway?) and everyone wanting email is forced to do it properly with their own SMTP server.

I know there'll be people who disagree with this. But then... You get spam. I don't. Who's right?

starman · Aug 6, 2003, 01:50 PM

Spam should be illegal, just like it is for the USPS. I'm already paying my ISP. What more do people want?

Mike

Paco500 · Aug 6, 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
What spam?

I never get spam.

So, any attempt by ISPs to charge me for sending email to solve a problem that other people have would be less than welcome here.

The simple solution to spam could possibly be that all ISPs be banned from offering POP3 collection (POP3 was never meant for anything other than local network collection anyway?) and everyone wanting email is forced to do it properly with their own SMTP server.

I know there'll be people who disagree with this. But then... You get spam. I don't. Who's right?

Ummm... what?

So you run your own mail server, I think, and you don't therefore, get spam? Is that your point?

I'd love to agree or disagree, but I'm not sure how turning off POP and running your own SMTP server are related. You do know they are two different protocols, right?

Sherwin · Aug 6, 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Paco500:
Ummm... what?

So you run your own mail server, I think, and you don't therefore, get spam? Is that your point?

I'd love to agree or disagree, but I'm not sure how turning off POP and running your own SMTP server are related. You do know they are two different protocols, right?

ISPs don't use POP =
ISPs don't need to run user SMTP =
Spammers must send from their own SMTP server +
Everyone else's SMTP server subscribed to something like spamcop and additionally doing reverse DNS on every incoming =
Spammers needing to change their IP address every day - not easy (especially if ISPs also have a minimum contract of a month) =
dramatic reduction in spam.

If you get rid of non-local POP3, the spammers won't have anyone to send to or anywhere to send from.

Phanguye · Aug 6, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
ISPs don't use POP =
ISPs don't need to run user SMTP =
Spammers must send from their own SMTP server +
Everyone else's SMTP server subscribed to something like spamcop and additionally doing reverse DNS on every incoming =
Spammers needing to change their IP address every day - not easy (especially if ISPs also have a minimum contract of a month) =
dramatic reduction in spam.

If you get rid of non-local POP3, the spammers won't have anyone to send to or anywhere to send from.

i dont see how ISPs arent going to run POP3 servers or SMTP servers

Paco500 · Aug 6, 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
ISPs don't use POP =
ISPs don't need to run user SMTP =
Spammers must send from their own SMTP server +
Everyone else's SMTP server subscribed to something like spamcop and additionally doing reverse DNS on every incoming =
Spammers needing to change their IP address every day - not easy (especially if ISPs also have a minimum contract of a month) =
dramatic reduction in spam.

If you get rid of non-local POP3, the spammers won't have anyone to send to or anywhere to send from.

While it seems logical...

Most spam goes out over unsecured and therefore hijacked SMTP servers. And you want to put SMTP servers in the hands of the masses? Most people do not update virus definitions/apply secuirty patches/backup data, etc, and you want to trust them all with SMTP servers?

This sounds like a recipie for disaster.

But back to the point- why couldn't ISP continue to run POP but not SMTP? If you dan't have a constat conneciton the the internet, it's kind of silly to run your own incoming mail server. You'd pretty much have to have broadband, but the majority of users on braodband are on cable modems, and most if not all cable providers prohibt running servers of any kind.

I don't think you're making much sense, but maybe I'm just not getting it.

Sherwin · Aug 6, 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Phanguye:
i dont see how ISPs arent going to run POP3 servers or SMTP servers

No, they're not, you're right.

But this is just as easy to do as charging for each email sent.
In fact, probably easier - where's the charge point for sending email?

At the source ISP's outgoing SMTP? (doesn't cater for people sending via their own SMTP).
At the destination ISP's incoming SMTP? (doesn't cater for people receiving via their own SMTP).
At the destination ISP's POP3? (doesn't cater for blah blah blah).

At the copy of Outlook/Entourage/OE?

(let's face it - Uncle Bill did once say "if I could find a way of charging for every transaction on the Internet we'd stop making software").

The reason why there's so much spam is simple: Proper use of email was compromised to make it easier/cheaper for home users. Until we get rid of the causes it's here to stay (so go buy that domain and copy of CommuniGate with filters now).

ambush · Aug 6, 2003, 02:42 PM

Restricting the Internet is a Nazi idea. What we want is freedom, right? This is what I want.

All the filtering must be made by 1) the isp

or 2) the mail app

On my mail server, I enabled SpamAssassin.

It works very very very very very very very well.

That, plus Mail.app's filter = 0 SPAM.

Sherwin · Aug 6, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Paco500:
Most spam goes out over unsecured and therefore hijacked SMTP servers. And you want to put SMTP servers in the hands of the masses?

It's not really that hard for SMTP server programmer to make the defaults secure is it? (unless they're from Washington State).

Originally posted by Paco500:
Most people do not update virus definitions/apply secuirty patches/backup data, etc, and you want to trust them all with SMTP servers?

It's in the design. If non-local POP3 never existed, you'd be able to buy a secure-by-default box from Walmart for $50 by now (in the same way that if nobody invented DSL or cable you'd be running a T1 into your house for $50/month right now).

Originally posted by Paco500:
But back to the point- why couldn't ISP continue to run POP but not SMTP?

Where would the POP user send email from?

Originally posted by Paco500:
If you dan't have a constat conneciton the the internet, it's kind of silly to run your own incoming mail server.

Nope. I ran SMTP over dial-up for 5 years. Depends on how the ISP is set up - my first ISP used to only run SMTP delivery (some kind of modified ESMTP deal) - no POP3 at all. It works.

Originally posted by Paco500:
You'd pretty much have to have broadband, but the majority of users on braodband are on cable modems, and most if not all cable providers prohibt running servers of any kind.

I don't think you're making much sense, but maybe I'm just not getting it.

No, you're not getting it. If non-local POP3 didn't exist (or was banned), cable providers would have to alter their systems to allow users to run servers on port 25.

Running a secure personal email server over broadband or dial-up doesn't have to be any harder than running a DSL or 56k modem - if the design is right. Non-techies follow instructions or set up scripts. It really wouldn't be hard to do at all - and it'd sort the spam problem - but it's not going to happen.

Xaositect · Aug 6, 2003, 04:11 PM

No. One of the arguements against spammers (but does not affect snail-mail junk) is that the receiver is the one footing the bill so s/he has the right to say what goes on. If you charge the sender, you have legitimized the sending. Yes, you will get some to go away, but in the long run you have played into the corporate advertiser's hands.

Thus, charging the sender does not, indeed cannot, eliminate spam. Concept Broken As Designed. M$ would love it. however, as they are one of the corporations that would love to legitimize spam.

cpt kangarooski · Aug 6, 2003, 04:33 PM

starman--

Spam should be illegal, just like it is for the USPS. I'm already
paying my ISP. What more do people want?

Uh, unsolicited commericial mail is not illegal per the USPS. ****, I get
tons of it all the time. We call it 'junk mail.'

wdlove · Aug 6, 2003, 06:11 PM

I would not want to pay. It would just be another openning for the govenment to tax us!

Cipher13 · Aug 6, 2003, 10:02 PM

No way would I ever pay for email.

Michael_Jackson · Aug 6, 2003, 10:27 PM

this raises an interesting question.. how would you feel, honestly now, if bin laden decided to blow up spammers in the US? what if al qaeda targeted those goddamn penis-pill peddlers? I think that would drastically change the public's perception of terrorists.

(I hope homeland defense doesn't lock me away for saying that!)

"Mahmoud, my spam filter is not working!!"

shmerek · Aug 6, 2003, 11:29 PM

I don't get any spam any more since I can disabled any address that causes problems through my domain control panel. Since I killed the humpaholic@ account I haven't had a single spam message.

malvolio · Aug 6, 2003, 11:31 PM

My spam filters only miss 2 or 3 spam messages a week. So what would I pay to avoid clicking Delete 3 times a week?
That's right. Nothing.

Superchicken · Aug 6, 2003, 11:54 PM

I hate blogger, I had no spam before blogger, I kept my e-mail addy safe for over a year!

thePurpleGiant · Aug 7, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by ambush:
Restricting the Internet is a Nazi idea. What we want is freedom, right? This is what I want.

All the filtering must be made by 1) the isp

or 2) the mail app

On my mail server, I enabled SpamAssassin.

It works very very very very very very very well.

That, plus Mail.app's filter = 0 SPAM.

Me too. Amazing hey? I have 7 email accounts on my own server, and one hosted elsewhere in case it goes down.

My server (with spam assasin installed): 0 spam, ever.

Other server: 10 spam per day, ~ 6 blocked by mail = 4 spam per day.