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

I like the idea about having to solve a puzzle, except that's hardly universal.

It will be interesting to see what happens...Most of these alleged "e-mail spam blocking ideas" never go into affect, or actually work.

So a company that does email hosting has to buy 10x more computers to handle the computational power in order to continue providing the equivalent service for their customers? Sounds like a way to kill the little guys.

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48172 date=1078696028]
It will be interesting to see what happens...Most of these alleged "e-mail spam blocking ideas" never go into affect, or actually work.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.thedragonmaster.net/MrRaza/Images/Virus.png[/img]

All virii.


edit: I got three more today too.

I have never gotten a virus mailed to me. What are you doin to get that many?

I'm a lil disgusted at this new idea of charging for stamps. You can probably predict that if it starts at 1 penny soon it will be 5 and so on until it'll cost as much as sending a letter, and when you send 10-20 e-mails every day, it could be very expensive. The whole point of why e-mail got famous is due to the fact that it's quick taking a few seconds to a few minutes as compared to sending a letter which takes a few days and that it was free. Hopefully it will stay that way. Companies are just trying to make additional money off of

[quote author=MrRaza link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48186 date=1078697815]
<img>
All virii.


edit: I got three more today too.
[/quote]

Even the one with no attachment? That's quite a trick.

I haven't ever recieved viruseseses in email. And I don't think the stamps will make any difference because the viruseses are sent from other people's computers and it would probably cost the infected people the money.


And if they do add stamps, who do you pay? I should propose a law that everybody has to pay ME to use email.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48174 date=1078696161]
So a company that does email hosting has to buy 10x more computers to handle the computational power in order to continue providing the equivalent service for their customers? Sounds like a way to kill the little guys.
[/quote]

It's Microsoft, what can you say. That's a blunt comment, but more or less, it's true. Just look at what they're trying to do with palladium/TCPA trying to take over the market and kill off all the small businesses.

The whole idea is retarded.

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48199 date=1078700006]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48174 date=1078696161]
So a company that does email hosting has to buy 10x more computers to handle the computational power in order to continue providing the equivalent service for their customers? Sounds like a way to kill the little guys.
[/quote]

It's Microsoft, what can you say. That's a blunt comment, but more or less, it's true. Just look at what they're trying to do with palladium/TCPA trying to take over the market and kill off all the small businesses.
[/quote]
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how you can automatically equate TCPA with killing small businesses.

[quote author=Skywing link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48203 date=1078702438]
[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48199 date=1078700006]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48174 date=1078696161]
So a company that does email hosting has to buy 10x more computers to handle the computational power in order to continue providing the equivalent service for their customers? Sounds like a way to kill the little guys.
[/quote]

It's Microsoft, what can you say. That's a blunt comment, but more or less, it's true. Just look at what they're trying to do with palladium/TCPA trying to take over the market and kill off all the small businesses.
[/quote]
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how you can automatically equate TCPA with killing small businesses.
[/quote]

I was wondering that myself..

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48197 date=1078699698]
[quote author=MrRaza link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48186 date=1078697815]
<img>
All virii.


edit: I got three more today too.
[/quote]

Even the one with no attachment? That's quite a trick.
[/quote]

Smart ass. I guess you failed to realize the pattern, look at the email size.

Still what are you doing to get that much bad traffic?

It's a good idea to make it so that as an anonymous sender you can purchase clearance to put a mail in a recipient's mailbox. The money has to go 90% to the recipient. That way, you whitelist all the people you know, and the ones you don't know have to pay you $0.10 for you to read their mail. You should be able to set the price tag yourself as well. Lawyers might charge $50 for reading an e-mail letter.

Only accepting emails from people on your list is another way of taking care of that. But with the current email architecture, that can easily be forged.

I think the problem is mainly the person who opens executable attachments.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=0#msg48246 date=1078711181]
It's a good idea to make it so that as an anonymous sender you can purchase clearance to put a mail in a recipient's mailbox. The money has to go 90% to the recipient. That way, you whitelist all the people you know, and the ones you don't know have to pay you $0.10 for you to read their mail. You should be able to set the price tag yourself as well. Lawyers might charge $50 for reading an e-mail letter.
[/quote]

I agree Adron. That should be extended to telephone and cel phone calls. The caller should be prompted to pay to complete the call if the owner has set a price to be contacted. Whitelist your friends and family and business acquaintances. Also give receiver an option when receiving the call to waive the fee, for example if a friend is calling from an un-white-listed number.

Yes, an option to waive the fee makes it perfect. Then the only risk you're taking is that the receiver doesn't want your mail, and if he doesn't, you shouldn't be mailing, should you?

Here's a general email question for ya.

Why don't SMTP servers validate the sender? They should look up the mx of the sending domain and make sure the IP address matches the one of the sender.

Am I missing something totally obvious here?

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=2;threadid=5650;start=15#msg48477 date=1078803274]
Here's a general email question for ya.

Why don't SMTP servers validate the sender? They should look up the mx of the sending domain and make sure the IP address matches the one of the sender.

Am I missing something totally obvious here?
[/quote]

That's already on the table as a proposed upgrade to SMTP specification. It may even be in committee?

Dammit, I'm going to write an email server that does that.

Too Late.

[img]https://davnit.net/bnet/vL/files/ss.png[/img]

Should build that into sendmail.