Free Commodities Are Abused

Free commodities are abused.

I feel that a one-cent per outgoing email fee could be an
effective anti-spam weapon. Perhaps a $10 fee for top-posting
on certain news groups would mitigate the type of infestation
that we are currently experiencing on s.s.p. I'm not sure how
the Internet infrastructure is financed. However, if the U.S,
taxpayer is picking up the tab, then the proper use of any fees
is obvious.

Alternatively, any one poster might be limited to one top-post
per week--with some effective deterent to the use of aliases.
Most of us feel that this would not be a terrible restriction on
the freedom of *useful* speech.

Moderated groups have their own disadvantages.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Len wrote:

Free commodities are abused.

I feel that a one-cent per outgoing email fee could be an
effective anti-spam weapon. Perhaps a $10 fee for top-posting
on certain news groups would mitigate the type of infestation
that we are currently experiencing on s.s.p. I'm not sure how
the Internet infrastructure is financed. However, if the U.S,
taxpayer is picking up the tab, then the proper use of any fees
is obvious.


An alternative is that you have some kind of digital cash cent "stamp",
that you can include with your outgoing mail. People can then set
their mailer to only accept mail if it includes the digital cent. The
person sending the mail will not get an acknowledge if they don't
include the stamp (or will probably get a message telling them the
delivery cost). You could set certain email addresses (from friends
etc) as free. This has the advantage of not requiring a central
change, just more and more people using an email client that marks
mails that aren't pre-paid for. In effect, you are being paid to "just
press delete" if you don't like the mail.

Len wrote:

Free commodities are abused.

I feel that a one-cent per outgoing email fee could be an
effective anti-spam weapon. Perhaps a $10 fee for top-posting
on certain news groups would mitigate the type of infestation
that we are currently experiencing on s.s.p. I'm not sure how
the Internet infrastructure is financed. However, if the U.S,
taxpayer is picking up the tab, then the proper use of any fees
is obvious.

Alternatively, any one poster might be limited to one top-post
per week--with some effective deterent to the use of aliases.
Most of us feel that this would not be a terrible restriction on
the freedom of *useful* speech.

Internet newsgroups prove Sturgeon was an optimist.
(Sturgeon's Law: "90% of science fiction is crud. But
then 90% of everything is crud.")

Meanwhile, we get to use our pattern-recognition skills
to extract the good stuff from the dross. (My profound
sympathy to anyone forced by their software to read
through all the messages in sequence rather than looking
at a list of titles and suthors and picking what to read.)

Yes, a penny-a-post fee would cure a lot of email's
ills, and might even help some in news...

Henry

Len wrote:

I feel that a one-cent per outgoing email fee could be an
effective anti-spam weapon. Perhaps a $10 fee for top-posting
on certain news groups would mitigate the type of infestation
that we are currently experiencing on s.s.p.



It's time to tax James Oberg? =-O

Pat

In article .com,
Len wrote:
I feel that a one-cent per outgoing email fee could be an
effective anti-spam weapon...

Alas, it would only increase the prevalence of something the spammers
already do a lot of: mailing from hijacked Windows boxes belonging to
other people, so the bill doesn't go to the spammer. This defeats *all*
schemes involving either authenticating the sending machine or making
message-sending an expensive operation.

When evaluating such a concept, it's important to consider possible
countermeasures, rather than narrowly focusing on something that could
stop *today's* spamming practices. The spammers *will* react, and any
anti-spam measure that can be defeated by simple changes in how they do
business is pointless.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

I like the digital stamp idea. How do we make it practical?

Len

I suppose we can always make some exceptions; Jim is OK.

Len

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article .com,
Len wrote:
I feel that a one-cent per outgoing email fee could be an
effective anti-spam weapon...

Alas, it would only increase the prevalence of something the spammers
already do a lot of: mailing from hijacked Windows boxes belonging to
other people, so the bill doesn't go to the spammer. This defeats *all*
schemes involving either authenticating the sending machine or making
message-sending an expensive operation.

But it would accomplish several things: Let people KNOW
their machines have been hijacked, impose a real price
on continued carelessness, and make the spammers liable
for an actual criminal theft of funds, easing prosecuting
them immensely.

Henry

Yes, Henry. I agree. However, there may be a silver lining in the
stolen
boxes problem. I had already considered this problem as a probability.

For one thing, hijackings would not be charged to the victim. However,

the perp would be charged with theft, with real money
involved--corresponding
to the "stolen" value of the boxes.. Big spammers could probably be
guilty of
grand larcency and sent to jail.

Len

"Len" wrote in message
oups.com...
Free commodities are abused.

I feel that a one-cent per outgoing email fee could be an
effective anti-spam weapon. Perhaps a $10 fee for top-posting
on certain news groups would mitigate the type of infestation
that we are currently experiencing on s.s.p. I'm not sure how
the Internet infrastructure is financed. However, if the U.S,
taxpayer is picking up the tab, then the proper use of any fees
is obvious.

Alternatively, any one poster might be limited to one top-post
per week--with some effective deterent to the use of aliases.


No anonymity!

"I have only five words for you: From my...cold...dead...hands."
..........Charlton Heston.

I just loved that quote~


Most of us feel that this would not be a terrible restriction on
the freedom of *useful* speech.


"Useful" The slippery slope.




Moderated groups have their own disadvantages.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com