Would you pay a penny per e-mail to stop SPAM

[Alan S]

Question to the group here: SPAM is a big problem for the e-mail infrastructure and an annoyance to all internet users. Would you be willing to pay a penny per email message if it would stop SPAM? Would you be willing to pay 0.1 cent per email to stop SPAM? Or would you prefer to keep all email free and live with the SPAM problem.

Discuss.

[tcmahoney]

Question to the group here: SPAM is a big problem for the e-mail infrastructure and an annoyance to all internet users. Would you be willing to pay a penny per email message if it would stop SPAM? Would you be willing to pay 0.1 cent per email to stop SPAM? Or would you prefer to keep all email free and live with the SPAM problem.

Discuss.
That would be one way to discourage spam.

But another, and cheaper, way I've heard of -- and I'm not going to look up the link now, other than to say I first saw it on Kevin Drum's blog in 2004 -- has to do with requiring the e-mail sender to perform mathematical calculations through some method I've clean forgotten. One e-mail? No problem. E-mailing everyone on the alumni mailing list? No problem. Two million e-mails at once? Problem.

[Chicago1871]

As a last resort.

[ChaChaFut]

I've never had real problems with spam, but I voted 0.1 cents per email, because that means that if I receive 27,000 emails I only have to pay $27. Unless it's a big commercial mailbox, that should cover an average user for years, IMHO. So that would be an outstanding deal if you could get it for a "family and friends only" mailbox, for example.

[MikeLastort2]

How about - no, "I don't want to pay but want spam to stop" as an option?

Which is what I do now with spam filters.

[Toon³]

Mozilla Thunderbird lets me live life without spam. So I voted to keep it free.

btw what is the difference between 0.1 and a penny?

[MikeLastort2]

Mozilla Thunderbird lets me live life without spam. So I voted to keep it free.

btw what is the difference between 0.1 and a penny?

0.1 penny is 1/10th of a penny, or 1/1000th of a dollar.

[Grouchy]

No.

I already get plenty of SPAM (http://grouchgeek.blogspot.com/2005/10/how-much-spam-do-you-get.html) but since I started using disposable mail addresses (I use Spam Gourmet (http://www.spamgourmet.com/)) my new SPAM is way down; the vast majority of Bulk mail on my Yahoo! account is from the same list that thinks I live somewhere else (five years ago).

That and you will never stop SPAM.

[Alan S]

That would be one way to discourage spam.

But another, and cheaper, way I've heard of -- and I'm not going to look up the link now, other than to say I first saw it on Kevin Drum's blog in 2004 -- has to do with requiring the e-mail sender to perform mathematical calculations through some method I've clean forgotten. One e-mail? No problem. E-mailing everyone on the alumni mailing list? No problem. Two million e-mails at once? Problem.

If I recall correctly from some message boards, that propsal came from Microsoft. I don't think addressed the question of what to do about zombie machines working for SPAMMERS.

In addition to the idea of changing a penny for e-mail there is also the idea of creating a Sender-ID system (one called Domain Keys) where e-mail has extra tags to validate the sender, and if it is not validated then can be treated differently from other e-mail.

Some think might not really take off bacause virtually everyone would need to agree on the same standard before it becomes useful.

[Alan S]

How about - no, "I don't want to pay but want spam to stop" as an option?

Which is what I do now with spam filters.

Spam filters do occasionally get real e-mail messages. If they are automatically deleted then you will never receive the message.

[kerpow]

Exactly who would you pay this fee to and how would they collect it? It wouldn't work anyway, spammers will always be one step ahead.

[MikeLastort2]

Spam filters do occasionally get real e-mail messages. If they are automatically deleted then you will never receive the message.

If it's important enough, someone can call me or send it to me through this thing called the "post office."

:)

Sorry, paying to receive e-mail as a way to combat spam won't work.

[Alan S]

Sorry, paying to receive e-mail as a way to combat spam won't work.

Actually it would be paying to [b]send[\b] e-mail not recieve it, exactly like a postage stamp. The idea is to create an economic dis-incentive for SPAM.

The reason SPAM works (economically) is it essentially free to send 100 million e-mail messages out to find the 5 or 6 idiots that respond to such things. Those hand full that respond then pay for the next round of SPAM, the other 100 million have to endure.

If it's important enough, someone can call me or send it to me through this thing called the "post office."

:)

BTW, a postage stamp costs 39 cents, and a phone call has a cost also. So if an e-mail message is important enough, why not pay a 1/10 of a penny, so the reciever can be sure is it NOT SPAM or a phishing attempt?

[Alan S]

Exactly who would you pay this fee to and how would they collect it? It wouldn't work anyway, spammers will always be one step ahead.

One proposal is that a sender of an e-mail would pay the fee. It would be exactly like a postage stamp. If you spend $10 you can send 1,000 or 10,000 e-mails.

When sending the the e-mail a third party would garuntee the identity of the sender to the recieveing ISP. The ISP recieveing the e-mail could then let it by-pass the spam filters and mark it with a symbol letting the person reading it know that it is a legit e-mail.

In some cases the ISP getting the e-mail could get some percentage of the penny. They could then use that to pay for the e-mail infrastructure or pass it on to the person getting the e-mail.

[MikeLastort2]

Actually it would be paying to [b]send[\b] e-mail not recieve it, exactly like a postage stamp. The idea is to create an economic dis-incentive for SPAM.

The reason SPAM works (economically) is it essentially free to send 100 million e-mail messages out to find the 5 or 6 idiots that respond to such things. Those hand full that respond then pay for the next round of SPAM, the other 100 million have to endure.

BTW, a postage stamp costs 39 cents, and a phone call has a cost also. So if an e-mail message is important enough, why not pay a 1/10 of a penny, so the reciever can be sure is it NOT SPAM or a phishing attempt?

See, the issue here is that you have this idea that I happen to think that e-mail is all that important. I don't, actually. I bet there are a whole lot of people who feel the same way.

I'm also not sure how the heck you can add fees to sending e-mail on a per message basis when the entire infrastructure of sending and receiving e-mail is already built into networks for free.

If my ISP starts charging me to send mail, I'll switch to an ISP that does not.

[noaihmtch]

hahaha they charge you and make more spam. what a cheap ************ attempt. needless to say your friends all become a spammer

[Metros Striker10]

I find the delete button a cheaper option.