Todays stupid e-mail system and a solution!

[the.weavster]

The way to stop spam would be to introduce a small charge for sending an email.

To be honsest, I don't think that would work any better... doesn't stop Telephone or Postal mail spam and scams does it.

The response rate to spam is 1 in 12.5 million so there's little doubt a small charge would work.

The way to stop spam would be to introduce a small charge for sending an email.

money! --------------- (Where do you presume this money should/would go?)

I don't particularly care where the money goes, it could be in the form of a tax that goes to the government.

With the response rate as it is the charge could be so low that it would be totally insignificant to you or I but it would be a huge disincentive to people sending out millions of speculative emails.

[Marlin]

I don't particularly care where the money goes, it could be in the form of a tax that goes to the government.

Demanding more regulations, making live even more complicated and restricted???

Giving more money to governments (aka monopolies of "legal" violence)
volutarily(that would only be on your part, perhaps, but you want others to be forced to pay as well?)?

I think, we do have enough problems (however indirectly) resulting from concentration of power
and the resulting incentive for corruption allready!


Btw. how would "small charges" for sending email..., influence f.e. this forum, sending mails to remind of changes in subscribed threads?
Probably we would all need to pay for that "small charge" multiple times, directly and indirectly...

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

The way to stop spam would be to introduce a small charge for sending an email.

To be honsest, I don't think that would work any better... doesn't stop Telephone or Postal mail spam and scams does it.

The response rate to spam is 1 in 12.5 million so there's little doubt a small charge would work.

I'm sorry, but that 2008 experiment was pretty weak to use as a baseline as it only really covered online Pharmacy related stuff via the Storm Network. but even if we say those figures are correct... $2,000,000PA. profit is not to be sniffed at.

but, seeing as most of these spams scams phishing exercises are "allegedly" run by criminal organisations, do you really think that paying for sending email will stop them? Chances are, they will be sending it from your PC via some malware. You will be initially be paying it for them.... until you argue with your ISP to get your money refunded.

So, like I said before... It will not work

[the.weavster]

Giving more money to governments (aka monopolies of "legal" violence)
volutarily(that would only be on your part, perhaps, but you want others to be forced to pay as well?)?

First you're worried about corporations getting the money, now it's the government. Have you ever considered that you might be a tad paranoid?

but even if we say those figures are correct... $2,000,000PA. profit is not to be sniffed at.

They wouldn't make that profit if they had to pay to send the email, that's the whole point.

but, seeing as most of these spams scams phishing exercises are "allegedly" run by criminal organisations, do you really think that paying for sending email will stop them?

Yes.

Chances are, they will be sending it from your PC via some malware.

They may try, as they try to steal credit card details, bank details, etc... It's another thing Windows users would have to secure their pc's against.

So, like I said before... It will not work

You can say that as many times as you like but it doesn't make you right.

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

You can say that as many times as you like but it doesn't make you right.

Touché But the reverse it true also, so I am happy to agree to disagree so to speak Besides, I'm getting to old for this arguing for the sake of arguing shit hehe

[codewalker]

for this arguing for the sake of arguing shit

That's right. I also notice that some ppl here are posting only to win the arguement,
to satisfy their own personality. We'll let me tell you that it's not about winning the
arguement but about trying to explain something or at least to contribute to a discussion
in such a away that things get cleared out. But hey, how to expect this from those
who can't get out of the way of their own ego.
cw

[Marlin]

but even if we say those figures are correct... $2,000,000PA. profit is not to be sniffed at.

They wouldn't make that profit if they had to pay to send the email, that's the whole point.

I wouldn't mind them paying,
but why us?

Don't you think, punishing a majority for something a minority is doing is a bit off?

Btw. my contract with my ISP explicitly forbids spamming,
either those spammers do have diffent contracts,
or noone is enforcing that with them.

If you restrict us Nonspammers more, it will not help any spam problem at all...

[Zach]

Two words.


Closed Relays.


Money will not do anything. Spamming is a multi-billion dollar business. They would "eat" the costs of per transaction charges, just as easily as a company can eat other taxes, or worse, passes those taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher fees.

Taxes are not, and never were intended to be, a form of regulation or penalty. Taxes are levied to collect funds for maintaining public infrastructure managed by a Government. Any Tax introduced on the Internet, against Internet specific activities, would have to go towards maintaining the Internet to be an effective Tax; But the Internet is not owned by anyone, it is a loose association of connected computers via backbones. Protocols are introduced and die off on a whim, the best you can accomplish is trying to standardize those protocols so they are as efficient as possible without killing the rest of the net.

To solve the spam problem, Governments need to start cracking down on negligently open relays and other avenues of lax security that allow mass spamming. Why they don't remains to be a mystery.. Although they sure love to waste money trying to pass schemes to make money off the Internet with taxes as it is.

It's such a shame, the Internet would be so much faster and efficient if spam could be eliminated, even if it were only by 25%

[C64]

There is a way to stop spam 100% but it requires everyone to use the same email software. Until that happens, spam will exist.

[Marlin]

I've been living with and deleting spam for more than a decade
and it has not even made me sick.

And I do not want any "solution" to spam,
that factually turns out to be a bigger burden than spam ever was.