Before you get mad at someone check your antispam filter
Am I the only person who gets mad at somebody for not answering only to find his/her answer in the antispam filter? Or worse, a person who others get mad at for not answering because they got lost in a sea of penis enlargement, affordable antidepressants and $10 dollar diplomas? I have alwas criticize Americans for being in favor of the death penalty but spammers, well maybe not the electric chair but…&%@!
Posted on General | 12:17 am
| 
Comments(6)
| 
Trackbacks(0)
Share This
| 
E-Mail This
| 
Other blog comments | 
Digg | 
Reddit
Posted by Sergio Fogel - July 27, 2008 5:04 pm - #
Here is a solution for spam: charge 1 cent per email message sent. Then use that money for charity, to be chosen by the receiver.
A normal person sends some 50 mails per day, that is $15 per month. A spammer cannot afford to pay even 1/1000 of that.
Posted by Martin Varsavsky - July 28, 2008 4:52 pm - #
I like it Sergio!
Posted by Michal - July 29, 2008 10:30 am - #
Even better: when you send an email - you spend 1 cent, when you receive email - you earn 1 cent. Normal user sends more or less the same amount of emails he receives, so for most of us the cost would be close to zero.
Posted by Jens - July 29, 2008 1:32 pm - #
Nice ideas, but so far there is one problem. Many spammers use hacked consumer PCs / accounts. That might backfire towards innocent users.
Posted by Martin Varsavsky - July 30, 2008 1:20 pm - #
Michal,
I like it even more!
Posted by e8563 - July 31, 2008 7:45 pm - #
Jens (#4), if consumer has to pay for mails sent from his account, he and his provider will have a strong incentive to avoid being hacked for sending spam. The measures could include a limit to a number of mails during a period of time, and a feedback from the provider to user about mails sent in his name.
If users/providers/software developers carelessly let using PCs/accounts for criminal purposes - they are not 100% innocent.