 PacketeersPremium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to wifi4milez
Re: Well, something will need to be done eventually.... said by Nightfall:Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. |
|
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
·Comcast
| said by Packeteers:said by Nightfall:Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. SHHHH!! Don't give ISPs any bright ideas.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers: actually, there is... charge money to send every email. And since a lot of spammers use hijacked machines to send their crap out, that will accomplish nothing. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by TheWickerMan:said by Packeteers: actually, there is... charge money to send every email. And since a lot of spammers use hijacked machines to send their crap out, that will accomplish nothing. I think its the vast majority that do that. Charging per email will only be bothersome to legitimate users.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
| no charge for sending more then (insert number here) messages a second or smiler |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers:actually, there is... charge money to send every email. Yeah, that will bankrupt a bunch of Mom and Pops and those who aren't computer savvy.
Most SPAM is sent by zombie relay machines--- PC's owned by viruses, trojans, and the like.
Result of your system would actually make SPAM more profitable then legitimate email marketing, and the users would be stuck with being banned for life from broadband because they owe thousands of $$$$ in bills due to robo-spam.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
|
|
| reply to anon32bat
So you don't charge people for sending more e-mail? Wouldn't that let spammers off the hook entirely?
Or maybe you meant no charge for sending less than X messages per second. In this case, the spammers will just space out their messages. Suppose I'm a spammer. I have a zombie network of 10,000 machines at my disposal. If I have each machine send out 1 spam message every minute over 8 hours, I've sent out 4.8 million messages. As my zombie network grows, I can send out even more spam messages without triggering the "e-mail charge" system. And if I do trigger it, what do I care? The people who would be paying would be the owners of the zombied systems, not me.
Then there's the whole question of who gets the money. Charging per e-mail is not the solution.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers:said by Nightfall:Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. I like the idea that was brought up once before. To charge 1/10th of a penny to send an email. The people who spam would have to pay a ton of money to do it. Once again though, it would require an overhaul of the current system. That is something a lot of people don't want to do. They want the same open system but no spam. That just isn't going to happen. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to TheWickerMan
said by TheWickerMan:said by Packeteers: actually, there is... charge money to send every email. And since a lot of spammers use hijacked machines to send their crap out, that will accomplish nothing. In order to make a system like that work, there would need to be an overhaul of what we have now. Think about it, if we were to overhaul the system and put in one that required 1/10th of a penny to send an email, wouldn't it work pretty well? Thats since we are living in "what if" land. Since no overhaul is coming, it sounds like we are going to be dealing with spam for a long time. |
|
| said by Nightfall: Think about it, if we were to overhaul the system and put in one that required 1/10th of a penny to send an email, wouldn't it work pretty well? How does that address the issue of spammers using hijacked machines? And that's not a "what if." That's something that's actually happening. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by TheWickerMan:said by Nightfall: Think about it, if we were to overhaul the system and put in one that required 1/10th of a penny to send an email, wouldn't it work pretty well? How does that address the issue of spammers using hijacked machines? And that's not a "what if." That's something that's actually happening. With an overhaul of the system, it would mean that there would be no more hijacked machines. You would have some kind of secure login or other means of authentication. As I said here, just thinking outside the box. |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| reply to Packeteers
said by Packeteers:said by Nightfall:Bottom line, there is no easy answer to the SPAM problem. actually, there is... charge money to send every email. I recommend a "follow the money." Spammers spam because there is money to be made. Rather go after spammer directly go after the company's making the products spammers are hawking.
/tom |
|
