E-mail stamps?

[GwydionM]

Last year there was a spoof claim about legislation for e-mail 'postal charges'. It provoked outrage from believers in electronic liberty, people who helped build up the system we now enjoy and who had hoped for a generalised system of self-regulation, without the state getting involved.

When the on-line community was small, people could trust each other and newcomers behaved because they wanted to get accepted. But the system has now got so big that it can not be run that way.

Junk mail needs one 'hit' per hundred or two hundred to be worth while. Junk e-mail needs maybe one per hundred thousand, which is why you might never ever get anything you'd consider in a whole lifetime of spam-reading.

I think we need an optional system of e-mail stamps. If you want to stay open to all of the world's junk, fine. But you could pay a small fee, maybe 5 cents a shot, for every message you send. Every message you get, you might be credited 3 cents, though this last would be open to abuse from some ingenious spammer setting up two IDs, running one into massive debt to give the other ID a lot of credit for spamming. Maybe there are technical answers to this.

The point is, you allow this control, only for those who want it, but freedom from Spam would be a major blessing. As is noted on the current BBC Online discussion,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/3080396.stm,

spammers are effectively stealing money from their victims by wasting their time.

Why don't service providers try it? It could include a 'FreeList' (also called Whitelist) of people you are happy to hear from. Anything else would be at least vaguely targeted at you.

 

[Provogeek]

Interesting idea; who would regulate it?

Self regulation on the ISP part would be an additional cost on the ISP, in turn, an additional cost to the customer.

If an agency of the government would regulate it, what would stop law enforcement authorities from abusing it? For it to work all mail would have to pass through a central server farm and/or secondary regulation server farms. Then each email would need to be opened up and read by some type of AI software to make it work right. With the billions of emails that pass around the Internet today, it would be virtually impossible to have a person do this.

I would not feel comfortable using a system that was regulated by someone not affiliated with me in any way going through all of my mail. I would hate to have the FBI knocking on my door because of an email that talks about bombing a military post. When that message in question was sent to clan members talking about a strategy in BF1942.

Right now the system we have is sufficient. The black lists are a pain the rump, those guys are so full of them selves it makes one wonder why mail systems use them. I only use ones that I can contact a person through email or voice. Sometimes those list just are plain wrong or your server gets hacked and it is now fixed. Good sites will remove you from the black list in a matter of hours, others will take days or weeks, even months in one case I had.

You could also look at spam as a pretty good job market. Over seas programmers are making programs that get around the spam filters, domestic programmers are making filters to fight the spam. It's an on going thing and a pretty good market to play in if you’re interested. Kind of like the virus market, new viruses always come out, so new definitions will always come out. People want to stay updated so they will pay to have the subscription to those new definitions. People will pay to have the latest spam filter in place to stop the latest spam trick the spammers are using.

Getting the government involved will only hurt the people, and any legislation passed on the house floor and signed into law will be useless. I have traced spam before and a majority of it comes from over seas, out of the reach of US law.

 

[chiph]

There was an initiative by the US Post Office to issue digital certificates which would positively identify an email sender, but I don't know what happened to it.

It actually has/had a good chance of working, because it would overcome one of the big problems with certs -- how do you tell they are who they say they are? In this scheme, there's already a post office in all but the smallest of towns, and everyone eventually goes by there to send something or pick something up. The postal clerks are able to make a visual identification that you are who you say you are and certify your identity. It also has the advantage of almost all their offices have computer terminals, and they're an internationally-recognized authority on mail delivery.

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[GlenJohnson]

I like the idea of having multiple e-mail accounts. (Currently have 5) Give out only the one you know won't be passed around, give out the other to anybody you don't care about. Get a pc with a BIG delete button, and when that gets out of hand, change the spam account to another name.

glen@mymail.com becomes glen.johnson@mymail.com. Has worked well for me.

Glen A. Johnson
Johnson Computer Consulting

http://www.johnsoncomputers.us

"The best fire does not flare up the soonest."
George Eliot (1819-1880); Englist novelist.

Want to get great answers to your Tek-Tips questions? Have a look at FAQ219-2884

 

[Gatorajc]

A big HE DOUBLE HOCKEY STICK NO. I don't want anything even remotly doing with charges anywhere near the internet or email. No way that would work. At least not in my life time.

I am with Glen create a spam acct and be done with it. I have one email for everything and another for stuff I have to read. Is it fool proof no but I get about much spam as I do junk mail. And for those that what check all is for.

Dont get me started on the post office. I am down to about 3 stamps a month and once the companies catch up with the rest of the world. I will say good bye USPS.

The USPS complained they needed to raise postage because they are getting more letters but then after 9/11 they said due to email they are doing less so they need to raise rates. I have an idea LOWER THE WAGES OF THOSE $40000 A YEAR LETTER CARRIERS.

Ok got off the point.

Nothing like you proposed will work. It will only hurt the everyday joe. The spammers will find a way around it.

AJ


If at first you do not succeed, cheat!

 

[GlenJohnson]

AJ, I think the proper quote is "If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed!"

Curly Joe Howard of Howard, Fine and Howard.

[seenoevil]



Glen A. Johnson
Johnson Computer Consulting

http://www.johnsoncomputers.us

"The best fire does not flare up the soonest."
George Eliot (1819-1880); Englist novelist.

Want to get great answers to your Tek-Tips questions? Have a look at FAQ219-2884

 

[sleipnir214]

Anything that consists of automated payments and the willy-nilly nature of SMTP has more possibilities for abuse than a south Louisiana election.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[GwydionM]

Glad to see there is an interest.

Obviously a new system can be abused. But since the current system is working badly, that's no reason not to try.

New ideas should be judged against existing alternatives, to see which is better. If people were starting from scratch and were also aware that e-mail might be abused, I think people would definitely have included a small fee.

You don't get on the internet for free, after all. Unless you are a real technical wizz, you rely on a service provider

 

[sleipnir214]

Abusing a system is one thing. Abusing a system where you can reap monetary benefit is entirely another. In the latter case, it is important to make your new system bullet-proof before implementation.

Just saying "Well, it's gotta be better that what we have." simply isn't enough. The rewards of quick money is too good a motivator otherwise.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[GwydionM]

Maybe credits for recipients are a bad idea. Just have it as a fixed fee.

As for who'd set it up, it would need several service providers to get together. THough it would be voluntary, I think the advantages would be so big that most people would sood adopt it.

 

[PeterS]

I would be MORE than happy to pay a couple of cents per email I sent if everyone else did too--the stuff I want I would get, and the spammers would be out of business in about an hour. Free is good, but my time has value, and I pay an ISP anyway; if my bill was a buck or two a month higher and I got little or no spam I would be ahead. Billing for Hotmail and similar services would be an issue, but I'm sure Microsoft could figure out a way--they get money in every other way you can imagine!

 

[jwenting]

I wonder who you'd want to regulate and administer that system...
The US government? But what about other countries? The Internet, whether you guys in the USA know it and like it or not is now a worldwide phenomenon and cannot be regulated by any single country.
That only works in countries like the PRC where everything that comes into and leaves the country is heavily censored. In such a system the government censor effectively creates an intranet for that entire country which has a few specific ports through a tightly controlled firewall which provides access to a specified list of resources in the outside world.
I doubt the US would accept their government doing that to the internet, or even to a subset of it like email traffic.
And such a firewall would be required in order to control the billing mechanism. All email from non-paying addresses (which would be pretty much everyone outside the US) would have to be blocked as would all email to such addresses.
Maybe in time other countries would set up similar systems, which might at some point conclude deals which would link them together.
Sounds like snailmail postal services? It should because that's how those got started and still work to this day.

It sounds a lot like paid-for whitelists, which you can easily set up for free.
For my server I could set it up to reject all email except from addresses I specifically exclude from the filter.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think jwenting that most people in the USA to know, and are thankful, that the internet is a worldwide medium and do appreciate, and are again thankful, that neither the USA, or any other government, can or should regulate it, even tho they might try.

But we should also realize that it's a double edged sword, as not having a governing body leads to difficulties in jurisdiction and the prosecution of those who abuse the system.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[PeterS]

Such a system would have to be operated by the ISPs, and in practical terms I don't know whether it could work.
The advantage I see over "whitelists" is that if YOU are willing to pay to send ME an email then I'll start with the assumption that it's worth looking at. Spammers depend on the fact that sending a million emails costs them no more than sending one; if sending one was a penny and sending a million was ten grand it would at least make the spammers want to choose their targets. Sending my mother (age 81) ads for Viagra and porn is pretty pointless.
The biggest problem with a whitelist is making sure that all of those who should be on it are.

 

[Grenage]

Either that or at least come up with some sort of token system, perhaps give people you wish to receive email from you're token ID #. If an incoming email does not match this token it won't get through.

Or perhaps more vigorous authentication on emails to ensure it does not come from a spoofed address, although this would increase network traffic a lot it would cut down spam.

 

[oharab]

I've just read a review of a package that gets round the biggest problem with whitelists. Basically it intercepts your emails & checks them against the whitelist. If it doesn't recognise it, it sends an email back to the reply address asking the recipient to add themselves to the whitelist. Spammers won't be able to reply, legitament senders will.
Not sure on the cost, but the principal is sound.

B

----------------------------------------------
Ben O'Hara

http://www.RobotParade.co.uk

"Where are all the stupid people from...
...And how'd they get so dumb?"
NoFX-The Decline
----------------------------------------------

 

[jwenting]

in a blaze of sarcasm, earthlink (the USs worst source of spam accounts after AOHell and Hotmail) is I believe offering this system to their customers Ben

Cajun, I know that not having a governing body with judicial powers is a problem.
Trouble is of course getting such a body in place which is recognised by all countries AND has jurisdiction in all countries.
The first part could be done through the UN (and I think should be done ASAP, replacing the US as the governing body for those things that are still US centric).
The second part is much harder, as no nation likes to subject its citizens to the justice of another. In theory Interpol could be used for this but that organisation is pretty much a teethless tiger with no power at all apart as a clearinghouse for extradition requests.
Maybe it could work, but given the WTO failure I doubt it. Nations that now harbour and profit from computer criminals (spammers, crackers, pirates) won't support such a move which would either block implementation or create safe havens for criminals.