News Yahoo and AOL to charge for some mail

[WilHarris]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/02..._charge_email/

[kiljoi]

As good of an idea as it seems, does anyone really think we're gonna be able to stop the spam problem? I'm just wondering, if this is a pay service, does that means we won't be able to manually add whoever it is to the junk mail filters?

[Fusen]

so these emails that are paid for wont have their html or images removed? I'm quite sure the people who wont a large botnet wouldnt mind spending a little bit of the money they make by getting directly through, also phishing scams

novice users will see these emails and see the mark and think oh this has been paid for its definitely the real thing! so whoever sent the email paid 1cent to steal X amount from the person

worth the money for the bad guys and another tax on the good guys

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by Fusen

so these emails that are paid for wont have their html or images removed? I'm quite sure the people who wont a large botnet wouldnt mind spending a little bit of the money they make by getting directly through, also phishing scams

novice users will see these emails and see the mark and think oh this has been paid for its definitely the real thing! so whoever sent the email paid 1cent to steal X amount from the person

worth the money for the bad guys and another tax on the good guys

Well, do keep in mind that with the licensing fee, Yahoo and AOL will have the right to investigate who they give licenses to. Essentially, the idea isn't that you'll just plop down a credit card and be able to mail away...it's like having a bulk mail permit from the US Post office. Not only does it cost money, but the post gets to make sure your mail fits the qualifications to have the bulk mail applied to it (no indecent materials, etc).

For instance, banks would do well to get with this service, as then people using dummied phishing mail won't be able to send like they will...there will be an immediate distinction between "from the bank" and not. And a phisher would have to try and register AS the bank, and be verified, before releasing mail. Overall, should do a bit to curb the problem...

[Meanmotion]

Originally Posted by Fusen

so these emails that are paid for wont have their html or images removed? I'm quite sure the people who wont a large botnet wouldnt mind spending a little bit of the money they make by getting directly through, also phishing scams

novice users will see these emails and see the mark and think oh this has been paid for its definitely the real thing! so whoever sent the email paid 1cent to steal X amount from the person

worth the money for the bad guys and another tax on the good guys

Don't think so because they're paying per email. The whole point of spam is that email's are free. Their's noway they can make enough money per email to account for the millions they'd be sending out each day.

I think, overall, it's a pretty reasonable idea it's just a case of how it works in practice.

[mclean007]

I don't quite understand this. Any "bulk" mail that I get IS junk, unless I have specifically requested it, in which case I am happy to go through the steps of whitelisting the sender in question (email newsletters etc.). I also scan through my junk mail folder every few days in case any legitimate email has slipped through. This means I can have my junk mail filters set pretty aggresively, and I don't really have a problem with spam in my inbox.

I don't see many e-tailers being happy to spend even .25c per email to send out their mailshots. I imagine that most people who want to receive, say, play.com's weekly mailer already whitelist the address, and that those who currently get the mailer sent to their junk box are unlikely to be persuaded to make a purchase by the mailer forcing its way into their inbox (in fact, they are likely to get annoyed and boycott play).

By contrast, spamming is a pure numbers game. If the spammer (or, in particular, the phisherman) knows that, on average, x% of people will respond to the spam or scam, and that the return on each of those people is $y, then it's a simple sum to work out whether you can still make a profit by spending .25c for each email sent to an @yahoo.com or an @aol.com email address.

[Arkuden]

Originally Posted by Da Dego

Well, do keep in mind that with the licensing fee, Yahoo and AOL will have the right to investigate who they give licenses to. Essentially, the idea isn't that you'll just plop down a credit card and be able to mail away...it's like having a bulk mail permit from the US Post office. Not only does it cost money, but the post gets to make sure your mail fits the qualifications to have the bulk mail applied to it (no indecent materials, etc).

For instance, banks would do well to get with this service, as then people using dummied phishing mail won't be able to send like they will...there will be an immediate distinction between "from the bank" and not. And a phisher would have to try and register AS the bank, and be verified, before releasing mail. Overall, should do a bit to curb the problem...

If that system is applied here I can definately see this as being useful. Granted I think we should still have to option to have it sent to a bulk or junk folder if we still wished not to receive it. Although legitamate there are plently of things that we dont need or want, just becuase someone is paying to send it doesnt mean we now have to receive it. Should be interesting to see how this plays out though.

[Firehed]

I'll just repost what I said at /. on the matter:

Consider the once vaguely-suggested-and-heavily-opposed concept of an email tax. Now revamp it so it works well. You set a flag that messages without a micropayment attached (a nickel or so, maybe) won't be recieved. But, and here's the kicker, you refund the payment for messages you actually wanted to recieve. Legitimate email is still free. You can now go out of your way to sign up for spam lists, as if they want you to get the messages (which you then locally flag as junk, and don't see them, at least if your filtering is as effective as Thunderbird's), they have to send you a nickel. Your friends and subscriptions keep their nickels. You earn a dollar for every twenty spam messages. Spam then becomes worthless to the senders, as the ROI is negative, and until the point where spam stops, the rest of us make money off of it.

The only difference here is that AOL is collecting the nickels, not the mail recipient. So it's, of course, corporate greed rather than customer service.

Maybe on Internet2. Or whatever... once we've all got our $money_qty rfid tags injected into our fingers, after physical currency is eliminated. Of course, the issue crops up when you've got a legitimate mass-mailing. Presumably you'd just blacklist your customers that don't return (or do accept, depending on when the payment is sent). For a small mailing list it's no biggie, but even something like forum notices would get expensive, and it could cost tens of thousands of dollars to send out an issue of Newegg's newsletter, or something to that general effect.

Still, I honestly think it's a step in the right direction.

[invalid]

Stupid. Spam to me is anything that is unwanted. A big store email and a porn selling email are both spam to me.

Who cares though, Ill just flag it myself to block the emails.

[Buzzons]

could spammers not just spoof this ID that is needed?

the header of an email is pritty simple to create afterall

[IanW]

Simple answer is to not use OE.

Instead, use a proper email client with built-in junk controls that are controlled by the user not the ISP. Thunderbird springs readily to mind.

[cpemma]

Originally Posted by invalid

Stupid. Spam to me is anything that is unwanted. A big store email and a porn selling email are both spam to me.

I don't know the laws in your country, but in the UK there's a world of difference. With a legitimate UK company you can opt out at any time and that's the end of it. With spam you try to opt out and get your address sold to other spammers as a live target.

Would the proposed scheme have pitfalls? Freeserve tried something a few years ago, when AOL were blacklisting other ISPs left, right and centre for "condoning spamming". Bulk mailings were delayed, sometimes for a matter of days, until they'd been investigated manually. Problem was, their idea of 'bulk' was around 20+, and I was hit mailing maybe 60 copies of club minutes out to members. Didn't last long, too many complaints from genuine users.

Originally Posted by IanW

Simple answer is to not use OE...Instead, use a proper email client with built-in junk controls that are controlled by the user

You're showing your ignorance; OE has excellent Message Rules that delete 75% of my spam on the server and send most of the rest straight to the Deleted folder.

[DXR_13KE]

i think this will be a perfect way to bypass any protection for spamers worldwide.... if they can emulate he code.... or haxor it......"fill her up" LOL

[Firehed]

Originally Posted by cpemma

I don't know the laws in your country, but in the UK there's a world of difference. With a legitimate UK company you can opt out at any time and that's the end of it. With spam you try to opt out and get your address sold to other spammers as a live target.

Would the proposed scheme have pitfalls? Freeserve tried something a few years ago, when AOL were blacklisting other ISPs left, right and centre for "condoning spamming". Bulk mailings were delayed, sometimes for a matter of days, until they'd been investigated manually. Problem was, their idea of 'bulk' was around 20+, and I was hit mailing maybe 60 copies of club minutes out to members. Didn't last long, too many complaints from genuine users.

You're showing your ignorance; OE has excellent Message Rules that delete 75% of my spam on the server and send most of the rest straight to the Deleted folder.

Only way I ever had any luck filtering with OE was getting some third party software that would go and rename the title, and you'd have to manually filter from there. TB is automatic and adaptive.

[eek]

heh, seems like a money grabbing exercise to me!

I'm with invalid, if people want to send me "spam" then it's up to me if I want to recieve it or not, I'm the one that should be getting the 0.25c. Just because a company is willing to pay another company money to send me mail doesn't mean I want it and doesn't mean it's not spam.

[Risky]

I've been on mailwasher since fairly early days. Does a ncie job, imo.

As for this idea, it seems sound. We all here can sort out our filtering, but anything that restricts the junk suits, if it means less calls from worried relatives, etc over some dogy email or other.

[Cthippo]

Originally Posted by cpemma

You're showing your ignorance; OE has excellent Message Rules that delete 75% of my spam on the server and send most of the rest straight to the Deleted folder.

I'm on Yahoo Mail and it gets about 98% of spam. I've never quite figured out what the point of Outlook / OE was supposed to be.

In a similar vein, I'm not exactly sure what this scheme is supposed to accomplish. They pay, and it ends up in my inbox. That says nothing about weather I wanted it in my inbox in the first place. cpemma is right about the legal difference, but I agree with Invalid as far as my view of what is and is not spam. If you're trying to sell me somthing and I didn's specifically ask for your ads, it is spam. The more I think about it, this falls under the categoy of "If it ain't broke, don't mess with it!"