[SpamCop-List] Re: Yahoo and AOL Plan Would Charge Senders a Fee to Route E-Mail _ Around Spam Filters_

[Philippe Verdy (n.o-s.p.a.m+abuse)]

"Possum Trot" <PossumTrot at dont.spam.me> a écrit dans le message de news: 
ds83gm$anm$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> http://tinyurl.com/d3ht9
>
> 1/4 to 1 cent?  How about making that in dollars or Euros.

Or 0.0025 EUR to 0.01 EUR What does it change?

May be Yahoo and AOL could do the reverse: with your personal account, you 
have a limited weekly book of stamps. For sending more emails from the Yahoo 
account, you need to buy stamps online. To be allowed to send emails inany 
case, you must be authenticated.

For almost all home usersthat send emails manually, they will have much 
enough stamps to use the service freely and reasonably. Above this 
threshold, users will need to go elsewhere (using aliases could be easily 
defeated by tracking the source IP of the sender, or by the confirmation 
email that is needed to verify the identity ofthe sender), or the emails 
would remain in the outgoing box. Users could still manage which email they 
feel is more urgent.

Yahoo and AOL email creations would be also limited in time from the same IP 
or same alternate email address, with supplementary accounts being left on 
hold.

At start, you would have fewer stamps, but the number of free stamps per 
week could increase with time with the number of past emails that were not 
rejected, and decreased with the rejected emails, or if a mailbox stays too 
long with too many received mails in the box. This would give bonus and more 
freedom for legitimate users, would reduce the load of their service, and 
mailboxes could then become larger.

This would push out spammers currently using Yahoo or AOL to send email, so 
less spam originating from their network: there's a limit to the offered 
free service. And other ISPs would be much more happy (and easier to block 
with less collateral damages if they accept spammers in their system).

Currently, the need to use filterscreatestoo many false positives and harms 
more the users of large ISPs justbecause they can host much more spammers 
and they canrelay their spew muchfaster before dectection and ousting, when 
the small ISPs or independant organizations can more easily tweak their 
filters and surveillance for the needs of their users.

Another good thing is that this would greatly reduce the impact done by a 
single subscriber infected by a viral spamware: their email stamps would be 
exhausted immediately, theiroutgoing mailbox would be full of proofs of 
spam, and these users would need to take action to clean their PC, possibly 
using free cleaning tools provided by the ISP's assistance.