Since when is AOL free?
--- Ole J. Rogeberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A problem with Fred's solution is that the most obnoxious spammers would
probably set their field to the non-spam when they sent out spam,
But if it were illegal, with stiff fines, for a spam message to have the
field set as non-spam, that would
While we're at it, why don't we make it illegal for people to kill each
other. If it were illegal, with stiff fines, we'd surely get rid of
murder. Same for drug use.
I find it highly implausible that a regulatory structure like that
proposed below would make a whit of difference other than
Incidentally, Pobox rated Jason debacker's response 6/10 on the spam
scale, possibly because of the large number of words that often appear
in spam: `email addresses', `customers', `spam', `retailers',
`cheapest'
I took a look at the Pobox mail service and it seems very good for
helping to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took a look at the Pobox mail service and it seems very good for
helping to prevent spam.
Most spam filters knock out messages sent to undisclosed recipients or
to lists of people, which also knock out listserv messages. Blocking
individual
I sent this yesterday, but it never seems to have hit the list.
Subject: Re: Spam: Legal, economic or technical problem?
available. Any thoughts on whether spam can be reduced via
some sort of economic or technical mechanism?
There are already a lot of ways to do this.
Most email programs
--- Eric Crampton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we're at it, why don't we make it illegal for people to kill each
other. If it were illegal, with stiff fines, we'd surely get rid of
murder.
Do you deny that we have less murder with laws penalizing it than if we had
no such laws?
If so, do
AOL is the most popular ISP (I think) and Hotmail must be up there in
popularity for email accounts- and this is the case even though those
two are notorious for giving out their banks of email addresses to
spammers. In addition, selling these names is good because it makes the
service
What about e-mail spam? The technology seems to prohibit an effective ban
on spam, yet neither an economic nor legal solution seems
available. Any thoughts on whether spam can be reduced via
some sort of economic or technical mechanism?
Fabio
I don't have specific expertise on email
A problem with Fred's solution is that the most obnoxious spammers would
probably set their field to the non-spam when they sent out spam, in
order to increase the probability that it would be read. This would be
similar to spammers using subject-fields such as Re: Hello and In answer
to your
When faxes were invented, people got pissed off when their valuable fax
line was used by unsolicited advertisements. Thus, in many places fax spam
is now a legal offense punishable by a large fine for each unwanted faxed
message.
Ie, the conflict was resolvd simply by having the practice
There are some good potential economic mechanisms using micro-payments. If it
costs even a nickel to send an email that would greatly reduce spam. Money is
not even necessary - suppose that when an email was sent a response was sent
back saying in order to accept this email you must factor this
12 matches
Mail list logo
