__/ [Jim Richardson] on Tuesday 07 February 2006 07:18 \__
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:11:53 +0000,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> __/ [Larry Qualig] on Tuesday 07 February 2006 01:51 \__
>>
>>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4684942.stm
>>>>
>>>> Big net firms are trying to stop spammers by charging to deliver
>>>> e-mail messages.
>>>>
>>>> AOL and Yahoo plan to charge fees of up to one cent (US) per
>>>> message to those that sign up for the service.
>>>>
>>>> Paying the fees means that messages will not go through spam
>>>> filters, are guaranteed to arrive and will bear a stamp of
>>>> authenticity.
>>>>
>>>> Both AOL and Yahoo said they would start offering the service
>>>> within the next few months.
>>>>
>>>> Cash call
>>>>
>>>> The optional charging plan is meant for those organisations that
>>>> send a lot of e-mail and do not want their messages mistaken for
>>>> spam. Organisations that do not want to sign up will be able to
>>>> send mail the old-fashioned way.
>>>>
>>>> And organisations / people who don't sign up will find all their email
>>>> deleted as spam no doubt. Can't see this 'scam' working somehow.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have serious issues with AOL and Yahoo charging for email. But then
>>> again... they are in business to make money so their intention is
>>> obvious.
>>
>>
>> AOL? Yahoo? The majority spam is sent merely passively. They could stop
>> 'manual spam', but are they truly /that/ ignorant?
>>
>>
>>> A simple solution would be for ISPs to put a daily/weekly limit on how
>>> much email can be sent. A reasonable amount would be something like 500
>>> emails a day. Limiting to 500 (or whatever) emails a day would limit
>>> how much spam could be sent from any one email account. Individuals on
>>> the other hand wouldn't be affected. (What was the last time you sent
>>> 500 emails in one day?)
>>
>>
>> That would crush challenge/response filters, which in turn only would
>> expose more people to spam. E-mail is also being used for verification, so
>> the idea is preposterous.
>>
>
>
> Challange responce is part of the problem. It's like draining your used
> oil into the sewer, *you* may not see it, but that doesn't mean it just
> goes away.
Good analogy.
Spamcop are said to have banned some mail servers that use C/R. I read this
on Brad Templeton's blog quite recently. My messages ended up in someone's
junk folder, possibly owing to a ban, which appears to have been lifted. If
*everyone* used C/R, there wouldn't be any problems. It doesn't peril
mailing lists either.
Roy
|
|
