Hi, On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +0000, Martin Gregorie <mar...@gregorie.org> wrote: > I don't think that would help at all. Bots would just pretend to be mail > servers and use SMTP. Any other form of spam could be circumvented by > setting up spammer-owned MTAs that spammers would use to inject spam.
nothing new so far. > IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it > was universally enforced. A small charge, e.g. $0.001 to $0.01 per > addressee per message would be almost unnoticable to a normal user or > business while still being enough to discourage volume spammers by > wiping out their profits. Another benefit would be that the bill > received by a bot-infected user would serve as a powerful wake-up call > to get disinfected. This is imho a very bad idea, as it would destroy much of the freedom of the Internet in one go, since it would then be impossible to send anonymous emails. Although not very much people make use of this feature, I find it MUCH too valuable to abandon and have the Internet policed by those who would want to cash you, and/or prevent you from sending email in the first place. It's quite sad to find the ugly joke with X.400, which would be mostly just that, electronic postage per email, to be taken for real... Kind regards, --Toni++
