Coffeehouse Thread

115 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

This Will Make You LOVE SPAM !

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    shreyasonli​ne

    Hello guys,

    I have invented an idea which if implemented would revolutionize the entire e-mail community! Today every one using email suffers from viruses, phishing attacks, spoofed emails and not to mention SPAM. Well, there can be some ways by which viruses, phishing attack and spoofed emails can be blocked or detected by using techniques like SPF (see http://spf.pobox.com), but there is no way to pervent someone from sending you SPAM.

    Hence, if you are not able to stop some one to send you spam, better you allow to send spam and then regulate it!

    How to regulate spam?
    Well, make email sender to pay a amount for sending mail. Soon the volume of mails will reduce! A part of the amount will be taken by the sender's email server and receivers email server as 'brokage' and rest amount would be paid to the reciever of the email. So, if you receive a lot of spam, you receive a lot of money.

    But, why should my friend pay me for a email? This will make communication between us difficult.
    You can add yours friends address in a FREE MAIL LIST. All the people who are listed in your list will not need to pay even a cent. Where as you can set some amount like $1 as default amount. By this, if some one has to mail you and is not listed in your FREE Mail list then he will have to pay you $1 in order to mail you. So if you hate unsolicit mails, make the default amount to say $100. Now the unsolicitor will have to think twice before sending you mail! If someone sent you a important mail and he had to pay $100 then you can always return his money back just by emailing him $100.

    What is the use of such system?
    If this system is in place, you can make direct payments very securely to anyone in the world just by sending a email of appropriate amount. You will forget the Credit Cards.

    So guys what do you think about this idea? Impractical? Think again. I have developed a protocol extension in SMTP which will help to do all the above features securely.

    your comments....

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    The "email postage" idea isn't a new one (though congrats for thinking of it). The idea has been to charge something fractional like .01 cents/email. People who send a hundred emails a day will only pay 1 penny a day, or less than a dollar a month.

    But, folk who send millions will cost more.

    The "free to a friend" idea's an interesting one, but wouldn't that require a whole new email system? After all, email is effectively transient: once it's left each email server, it's completely forgotten (gotta love SMTP).

    How would you imagine such a system working or being implemented practically?

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    I think this is a very bad idea.

  • User profile image
    phunky_avoc​ado

    Ok, I'll bite...why?

    Maurits wrote:
    I think this is a very bad idea.

  • User profile image
    Loadsgood

    This was Bill Gates' idea. I wonder if he's going to implement it, he probably won't since the critics out there hated the idea. So do I, there are a lot of ripping off people involved in this, probably a crack to make the sender pay more, and just to much risk all up. It would make a lot less people use email,  and over all you would have to attach your money account to your email account (as in have a secret section in your email setup with your bank details, which there probably would be a crack to find out).

  • User profile image
    phunky_avoc​ado

    Ok, that is a justifiable concern.  What if people paid for an "email credit" ahead of time.  Like, if an email costs $0.00001 and you buy 100,000 emails worth, you pay $1 (if I got my math right) and then can send up to 100,000 emails.  The credit could be stored on a portable USB device (like what I have hanging off my keychain) and Outlook or whatever debits the reader for each email.

    Loadsgood wrote:
    This was Bill Gates' idea. I wonder if he's going to implement it, he probably won't since the critics out there hated the idea. So do I, there are a lot of ripping off people involved in this, probably a crack to make the sender pay more, and just to much risk all up. It would make a lot less people use email,  and over all you would have to attach your money account to your email account (as in have a secret section in your email setup with your bank details, which there probably would be a crack to find out).

  • User profile image
    Loadsgood

    Hmmm, thats also true. But that might even encourage spammers, because if just one person buys there $19.99 what-not, then that pays for a lot of emails. But then again they could just make the spam mails more expensive, you know like $0.50 or something, then there would be a lot less spammers.

    I like your credit move ability idea. But people would probably copy and paste their credit files (make two of the one file, resulting in doubled credit) and then put it on a USB key then put that file on a different mail account.

    Oh yes what if some poor user gets a virus or whatever you want to call it, then it turns their computer into a zombie spamming machiene (a computer only controlled by the virus creator, not the user) and that user's credit is attached to that machiene's email. On top of that every spam mail sent has a small virus in it which does the same thing. Talk about a weapon of Mass Destruction.

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    phunky_avocado wrote:
    Ok, I'll bite...why?

    Maurits wrote:I think this is a very bad idea.


    Because email should continue to be free.

    EDIT:
    Don't charge me to send -
    I already pay enough
    To my ISP.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Maurits wrote:
    Because email should continue to be free.


    Why?

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Manip wrote:
    It is the equivalent to charging someone for going down to the beach and drinking out the sea.


    Which does happen. Private beaches are fairly common in the UK Smiley

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I absolutely hate this idea. Here is a run down of just a few points

    - How are you going to enforce this tax?
    - What if countries don't want to sign up?
    - Who managed this tax 'free' e-mail list?
    - How do you calculate how much mail has been sent?
    - Define what is an 'E-Mail'
    - What right does a government have to tax e-mail?
    - What happens if I don't pay?
    - Do I pay before or after?
    - What if I want to continue to run my own mail server? Will I need to link into the tax system? What is my incentive for doing so?
    - What is stopping them from spoofing the from address and send illegal tax free mail?
    - How would you incorporate this into the current e-mail system?
    - Would legacy equipment and software still function?

    I really couldn't come up with a worse idea that would ruin the internet more. If this happened all the really cool people (including me) would have to leave the internet and start up our own independent network where technology and politics/cash flow have nothing to do with one another.

    I can't see how this tax could be legal either, your taxing a free service! This isn't like taxing something your paying $1 for, your applying a tax to a $0 service pushing it up.. This has never been done to my knowledge. It is the equivalent to charging someone for going down to the beach and drinking out the sea.


    I couldn't hate this idea more.. It is the worst suggestion I have heard and it scares me how a few of you are happy with it and discussing how you think it should be done.

    I wonder how many weeks until we see the HTTP tax on per web-page requests? Or maybe just on POST and GET requests, they are sort of like e-mail after all .. then why not IM?

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Jeremy W. wrote:
    Maurits wrote: Because email should continue to be free.


    Why?


    Why don't you justify why something shouldn't be free? It was free to start with, you are suggesting taking away our freedom so you be defensive for a big and explain why we should lose our freedom?

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    Jeremy W. wrote:
    Maurits wrote:Because email should continue to be free.


    Why?


    I don't really know.  It's basically a gut feeling.  I've come up with arguments for it but none of them really convince me.
    Snail mail is pay-per-envelope, certainly.  But you pay the postal service, not the addressee - and you certainly don't pay whatever the addressee decides is fair.
    Consider mailing lists.  They send out to lotsa people, who sign up.  I suppose they could just refuse to let you subscribe a sender-pays email address.
    I suppose a top-level domain could be created for these kinds of email addresses to avoid confusion - something like .pay-to-send, for example.  But I wouldn't want to send to anyone with such an email address.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Sorry, I was on my way out the door. I'm not suggesting taking away your freedom. I'm not actually for the idea. I just don't something like email "SHOULD" be free.

    You could, for instance, have Email2 where you had to pay "someone" to send it. If you had an Email2 address, you could only receive from Email2 senders. And Email2 senders have to pay "someone".

    Also, "free" and "freedom" are two very different things.

  • User profile image
    thechris

    email should stay free.  mainly becuase there would be way too much hassel for people to sign up for hotmail, gmail, and school, and work accounts.  and what about mailing lists?  can i anonymously pay for email?  if i pay for email, am I thus gaurenteed certain rights as a consumer?  given that zombienet sends a lot of email, would some people be charged $10 or more  per week for unknowningly sending email.  I'm fairly sure if such was the case, the maker of the OS would not be liable (in either linux, MacOS, or Windows), even though it can be argued it is as much their fault as the consumers if not more.

    this idea will not stop spam at all, it will just charge the unwitting consumers running zombieboxes for it.

    realistically, a better idea would be a non-spammers list.  people who can see if they are receiving email from others on the non-spammers list.  but i don't know if this is possible given the current email schema.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    What we really need is senderID up and running with the patents dropped... we need very public black-lists of bad domains/IP ranges and we need the ISPs to get off their collective asses and to do something about zombies. Like limiting machines in their network to sending 500 e-mails per day per machine (using IDS type devices).

    Allow people to opt out of the 500 message limit by paying £1 per month. That way the clueless bunch who get infected by zomies will only be able to send out 500 spam a day each, and the ones that opt out should be able to defend themselves.

    All of this will of course 'solve' nothing, but with it you should expect a massive reduction in global spam (-20% in a year).

  • User profile image
    Loadsgood

    Manip wrote:
    What we really need is senderID up and running with the patents dropped... we need very public black-lists of bad domains/IP ranges and we need the ISPs to get off their collective asses and to do something about zombies. Like limiting machines in their network to sending 500 e-mails per day per machine (using IDS type devices).

    Allow people to opt out of the 500 message limit by paying £1 per month. That way the clueless bunch who get infected by zomies will only be able to send out 500 spam a day each, and the ones that opt out should be able to defend themselves.

    All of this will of course 'solve' nothing, but with it you should expect a massive reduction in global spam (-20% in a year).


    Here here.

  • User profile image
    manickernel

    SenderID, SPF.... it is the solution. PLEASE!!! Let's move foward.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.