WTF: Bill Gates mouth opens, NOT GOOD!

[mike5000]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/index.html

To end spam, he proposes that we pay for 'stamps' to send email! :mad:

[Rijuhn]

If that happens then I shall forsake all that is digital and move to a poor country and live the rest of my life as a missionary. Or just pay the damn fee.

[Dart Zaidyer]

This could be a good thing. Think of what might happen...
-Geeks will unite to create Email's successor, which will almost certainly be Open Source and instantly applied into ANY digital device you can think of, just because they like to do that. This will make the old, stupid system worthless in the eyes of intelligent folk.
-The whole thing will fall apart anyway, because nobody wants to pay for Email.
-Microsoft will be pulling all the strings, because Bill is the one whose mouth it came out of. It may get thrust into the world with all the money he can throw at it, but will in the end go down in proprietary flames, as usual.

[theplustwo]

E-Mail is about due for an overhaul anyhow (no communications service should be able to have it's sender spoofed).

[Ich]

It's a clever idea. 1/10th of a cent for each email would make it unprofitable for the spammer. The problem would be developing nations. They wouldn't comply with it, and if some of them did, the ones that didn't would ruin it for the rest of us.

[bigjoe]

This could be a good thing. Think of what might happen...
-Geeks will unite to create Email's successor, which will almost certainly be Open Source and instantly applied into ANY digital device you can think of, just because they like to do that. This will make the old, stupid system worthless in the eyes of intelligent folk.
I'm already on it. With concept, anyway.

sourcE-mail! :)

err... maybe


It's a clever idea. 1/10th of a cent for each email would make it unprofitable for the spammer. The problem would be developing nations. They wouldn't comply with it, and if some of them did, the ones that didn't would ruin it for the rest of us.
What about people who have already paid for their email address, like me? Will we have to pay extra? I'm not for it, if so.

[Octium]

Anything that infringes on the limited privileges we already have on the net will insult everyone that populates it. We want faster speeds, and a free network of information without boundaries. Commercialization and regulation only impede technological progress. The Windows operating system is a perfect example of an impendence of technology. Linux is ahead by a long shot, but the monopoly that is Microsoft strangles their efforts. And here's Bill again, grabbing money wherever he can. I don't think so ;)

[linkofzelda1]

I'd rather have to deal with lots of spam than have to pay for every single e-mail I send. I think that idea is just rediculous; all spam is is annoying. It's not worth forking over my hard-earned cash.

Or my system resources, like the article stated.

[Rainman]

Interesting idea, sure it won't completely get rid of spam, but it'd probably limit it to manageable levels. Even better maybe it'll convince people that email is complete shit.

[plith]

And how does he propose to put this "stamp" system in place? Will all the fees go to the people who own the e-mail clients? Or will they go to the people who run the e-mail servers? Does he expect that ISPs and servers everywhere change their method of handling e-mail so that only special e-mail clients can send anything? Or will they just all simultaneously start charging people a certain amount to have their e-mail sent? But then, Microsoft wouldn't make as much money off of it, except through MSN and Hotmail or whatever. Speaking of which, what about "free" e-mail services? Will they survive under this proposed system? If stamps are handled by the individual clients, then Microsoft has absolutely no chance of maintaining it, of course. But if they're handled by servers, they still can't control it. What about legitimate institutions that send out thousands/millions of e-mails every day? Should they pay just because others are mooching off of suckers? Just who gets the profits of these stamps? The government? Microsoft? Individual ISPs? It's an impractical idea, and it rather stunts the growth and development of an unobstructed global environment.

[Mitsukara]

Even if it is possible, there's no way in heck I''m going to mail Microsoft a penny every three months for the e-mail I send. E-mail is a poor system as it is; it's unreliable in comparison to more instantaneous forms of online communication, and is extremely manipulable. Furthermore I'm certain it wouldn't eliminate spam, some companies would still spend the money to do it; it would only cut down on it.

This is a retarded idea. It will accomplish nothing good even if successfully carried out to some degree.


Instead of paying a penny, the sender would "buy" postage by devoting maybe 10 seconds of computing time to solving a math puzzle. The exercise would merely serve as proof of the sender's good faith.
WTF? Someone should sue for infringing the rights of the mentally disabled.

[Thunderbird]

Personally, I prefer the situation as it is now. Spam filters are a wonderful thing, IMO.

[mrz84]

rarely check my email as is so i don't really care. and when has anything bill gates said been a good thing?

[Dracula]

You know what I think is a better idea? How about if they get off music-downloaders' asses, and after email spammers and pop-up-computer-rapers. Much greater idea, I think than paying fort that shit. I can't afford it. :badrazz:

[SUCCESSOR]

ehh I don't give a fuck. Maybe people will stop sending me so many fucking forwards. otherthan that my exclusive filter works fine.

[Kamaria]

Let's make spam punishable by law. That will fix the fools up realll good. :D

[AtmaWeapon]

Waah waah waah. Did you know that you already pay a small fee for each email you send? Did you know that the internet is NOT free? Did you know there are people out there losing money and going out of business because of bandwidth costs?

Are you on AOL? AOL claims that $5 of their fee is to cover the costs of spam introduced into their system. Do you really like the idea of the fact that you are already paying money for emails you didn't even send???

Don't think you're already paying for it? Articles like this (http://www.cauce.org/about/faq.shtml#costs) should make you think. As I said above, the ISP already pays a sizable chunk of money for all the spam mail, and pass the costs on to YOU.

"Oh, but I use Yahoo mail, I don't have to pay for anything." Wrong. You notice all those flash ads that take up a quarter of your page? You are paying by viewing those. The bandwidth you use is paid for by your ISP, and your ISP pays for that bandwidth by charging you. This is even funnier for those who claim they don't want to send money to MS every time they send an email. If you have a Hotmail account or if you send emails to those that do, you just sent money to MS.

The system would probably not even work in that way. There's no way on Earth anyone would agree to a system where you pay Microsoft for email. It would probably be your ISP who gets your email fee. And, quite frankly, how many emails do you send a month? We're talking 1/10th of 1 cent per email here. For the emails I send in a month, that means I'd be paying an extra $0.04!!! OMG IT'S HIGHWAY ROBBERY!!!

The cost is low to us, but for spammers it would be a bit more prohibitive. Alan Ralsky brags he's responsible for almost 220 million emails a DAY. This would cost him $220,000 a day. To send 10-15K emails a day, a good load for the small spammer, would cost about $10-15 a day. It's not much, but add that to the $30-40 ISPs are starting to cost, and making $500/week spamming doesn't sound so appealing anymore.

Haven't you noticed that services like NetZero don't give free internet anymore? Look around for a free ISP. They were raped by spammers and couldn't support costs by ads anymore.

I actually applaud this move. Allow me to provide a screenshot of one of my email accounts.

52k Screenshot (http://www.atmaweapon.org/images/spam.gif)

This is my catch-all at atmaweapon.org. groups@, the address I post to newsgroups with, is the recipient of almost all the "Latest Net upgrades" and whatnot, all viruses. admin@ is the recipient of the rest, as it is a required address so spammers know it is there. The 4 or 5 spams go to webmaster@, another common address. The four legit emails were addressed to yahoo@ and shokata@. This is a practice I follow to see who is selling emails. But imagine, over the last week, I've received 4 legit emails out of 30 total. That's ridiculous and I want it to stop. If I have to pay an extra 4 or 5 cents as opposed to the 4 or 5 dollars I'm currently paying to fight spam, I'll do so.

[ShadowTiger]

The question is, would this affect spam-bots in any way? I mean, they must send thousands of E-mails every day. I wonder if they can get around that charge. If they couldn't, then they could probably trace the location with which they're paying. And if they CAN bypass the charge, then what's stopping others from also bypassing it. Wow. Think of the results of that! :eek:

[bigjoe]

Still, Atma , what about people who have ALREADY paid for their email addresses, like me? I use a softhome mail address. I should not be charged further than what I already am being charged. Theres a line you have to draw when you do these sorts of things.

[AtmaWeapon]

1) With regard to spambots, they have to use SOME connection to the internet to operate. If the spammer owns his own gateway and is his own ISP, then I guess he gets away with it, except he has to pay for bandwidth. This would definitely cause a nice rush to patch up security, as every mailer worm would now have the potential to cause lots of commercial damage on top of what they already cause. IMO, if you open email attachments anymore, you deserve to have to pay a fee. I only open attachments in the presence of triple-verification: filename in the email, advance email warning of the attachment in a separate email, and some form of IRL or IM conversation where the filename is mentioned. If I get a virus after that, it was intentional, and someone has some explaining to do.

2) As I explained, the cost of this email "tax" would be negligible. How many emails do you really send a month? Do you realize you'd have to send 1,000 emails before you even racked up a dollar in costs? When you consider I pay $50/month for my internet service, I'm not going to notice a dollar. I send, on average, 50-100 emails a month, so I'd be out of pocket a whole 5-10 cents.