From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e5c972d04da95d51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-17 15:39:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "AG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3E9D61C0.5070103@cogeco.ca> <3E9D8090.F86AF4EC@spam.no> <3E9D8625.4090308@cogeco.ca> <3E9D9642.2030303@cogeco.ca> <878yuae2uu.fsf@inf.enst.fr> <3E9EDB7B.2090901@cogeco.ca> Subject: Re: SPAM-less email (was If anybody wants to make something in Ada but X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:39:56 +1200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 219.88.61.154 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1050619183 219.88.61.154 (Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:39:43 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:39:43 NZST Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36261 Date: 2003-04-18T10:39:56+12:00 List-Id: "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wcche8wpz6x.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... > > We need to think about the _larger_ picture here. Too many people > > are stuck in the "let's filter" thinking, which is only a half > > measure. I'd like to challenge everyone to look to at a solicited > > email only solution. This is the _only_ way to eliminate unwanted > > mail (proof witheld ;-) > > But I *want* unsolicited email in some cases Well, if you do that's fine. > , like when somebody sends, > "Hey, you've never heard of me, but I heard your company (SofCheck, > Inc.) make static analysis tools, which I might want to buy. Please > tell me more." If you expect that sort of mail in a free-for-all mailbox you would probably have some people sifting through all the junk coming into it - even after any reasonable filters killed half of it (and paying the costs of course). > I don't want to pester such a person with extra hassles > involving encryption, or transactions of $0.02 and refunds thereof. However, suppose I want to have a mailbox which is freely visible and accessible. I might actually buy something that's advertised on that unsolicited mail. But: let's say any mail to that mailbox is automatically charged that $0.02 after 48 hours unless I cancel that in the meantime. (Any e-mail that can't be traced or charged is automatically rejected). Now, that would allow two things: Any person/company/organization that has a legitimate reason to use it need not worry - no charge happens. Any would-be seller is free to try it (at $0.02 it's not a big deal if you really hope for a sale and it may even be refunded if the sale works). However, in the case of mass-mailer spam that would quickly become prohibitive: If you can't be charged you don't get to post. If you can, then, say, a million posts to such addresses would mean $20,000 investment up front with little chance of recovery ...