Proposed e-mail plan: Sender pays per message. Good idea?

[control-z]

@Blaster_Master

As someone else said, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. I get very little spam, and I can’t recall the last time the spam filter missed it. Hell, I get more physical junk mail than I do spam email, and that already costs money and is more annoying since I have to actually throw it out.

You might not see much spam in your inbox, because it’s being filtered before it gets to you. A very sizable portion of Internet traffic is spam. Since Friday our small company got 661 messages classified as spam. And the classification isn’t 100% perfect, I bet if you look in your spam folder you will find at least one good message.

[DigitalC]

@tellyworth

Where “sender” equals “email address”? Spammers just use millions of different email addresses.

Also, how does one mail server know that john@example.com just sent an email using a different mail server?

And finally, what about services that have a legitimate need to send many emails? This forum, for example. It may well send more than 17k emails per day.

“Sender” would mean individual computer if possible. IP address maybe?

[Snooooopy]

I once read a similar proposal, but instead of involving money, it involved making the computer solve some kind of simple math problem for each e-mail that was sent. To the average sender, it would be such a short delay as to not be noticed. For someone sending bulk e-mails, it’d be enough of a hassle that you’d have to decide if it was really worth it.

[Mangetout]

At some point during the implementation of any such scheme, you create a situation where legitimate senders can no longer reach recipients who are expecting to hear from them.

[control-z]

@Snooooopy

I once read a similar proposal, but instead of involving money, it involved making the computer solve some kind of simple math problem for each e-mail that was sent. To the average sender, it would be such a short delay as to not be noticed. For someone sending bulk e-mails, it’d be enough of a hassle that you’d have to decide if it was really worth it.

Another fine in theory but not so good in practice idea. Everyone would have to update their mail server software, who would enforce (world-wide on millions of servers) that the sending mail server is actually doing the math, how does the receiving mail server verify the math was done, and if the math hasn’t been done what does the receiving mail server do with the message?

[tellyworth]

@Senegoid

She is talking of typical charges on the order of $1.00 per e-mail, not a nickel or a dime. That should be enough to stop most spammers and scammers from sending to anyone who uses this service.

With white-lists, the receiver can add a sender retroactively. That is, after you receive a message, you can decide if the sender was welcome to send it, and cancel the charge for the mail he already sent.

(…)

The recipient would be expected to put those senders on his white list. For example, I get e-mail alerts and such, from my banks, credit cards, insurance companies, and such. Of course, they would insist that I add their addresses to my white list.

With charges of $1.00 or more, who do you expect would actually pay the fee (without being whitelisted and reimbursed)? If the answer to that is “pretty much nobody”, then how is this different to a simple whitelist system?

Assuming that senders pay up front, and then are reimbursed if whitelisted, how would legitimate automated emails work - like the registration system on this forum, that sends a confirmation email to each attempted signup? What’s to stop someone signing up thousands of times, and simply not reimbursing the forum?

[tellyworth]

@DigitalC

“Sender” would mean individual computer if possible. IP address maybe?

Spammers have millions of computers and IP addresses at their disposal already.

It’s standard practice for the receiving mail server to limit the number of messages it will accept from a sending IP. But how does a receiver know how many messages that IP has sent to other servers?

[dzeiger]

A lot of people have posted reasons why this is a problematic idea to implement.

But can we find a way to make it happen at my workplace? If I could make a buck every time someone CCs me on an email that I have no reason to be CCed on, I’d be rich. Bonus if there’s an additional penalty every time someone includes a 4-meg picture of their screen…