Making Senders Pay The Price For Spam
from the this-again dept
We've had articles about setting up systems to make people "pay" to send emails before as a way to stamp out spam, but now IBM is on the case. They've worked out an idea that they think would prevent spammers from sending too many emails. It works by requiring any email sender to pay a small fee to receive an authorization code to send emails to certain addresses. The receiver can put anyone they want on a whitelist, which will exempt them from having to pay. Otherwise, the sender would need to get the authorization code first. It's an interesting plan, but like all such plans would (1) require a massive change in email infrastructure (2) require a massive change in the way people think about and use email and (3) actively discourage some of the nicer aspects of email. Spam is a huge problem that I complain about all the time - but I'm not convinced the "charge for it" solution is a practical one either.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Coincidence perhaps?
Is it just a co-incidence.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030313.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social rules
That would be the social rule that stops one from hitting the spammer with a baseball bat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]