On 11/20/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or > something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the > authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam > much less profitable.
Rod, I agree with you more often than I do with most people on this list, but I'd have to say I don't on this one. I don't like this idea, if for no other reason, I don't want to pay for email. I'm already paying $50 a month for high-speed Internet, there's no way I'm spending 25 cents an email. Spammers are, by definition, not prone to play nice with the system. Case in point, I don't like spam, I put up a filter for key words like viagra, enhancement, porn, etc. So what do the spammers do, they space out the words, or misspell them - pron, \/iagr@ EN HAN CE MENT. Spammers would get around the system, and the only people actually paying the "Spam-tax" would be the law abiding citizens of the net. This is an altogether bad idea. I don't know of a way to stop SPAM, but charging everyone for email is definately not it. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
