There are good and bad points to eliminating spam. The good points are, of course, not getting 30 emails a day in your Yahoo inbox or your other inboxes. Luckily Yahoo does a pretty good job of dealing with spam. If you take certain precautions, you can virtually eliminate spam in your other inboxes. Never give your personal email when you sign up for any membership on the Internet. By simply using your Yahoo email account for Internet memberships, you can eliminate 90% of spam. Only use give your personal ISP email account to friends and company contacts you can trust.
The bad points of eliminating spam is it stops ordinary people from reaching large audiences. Before the Internet, only the rich and powerful could afford to reach them. A skilled spammer can reach as many people as a Superbowl commercial, tens of millions of people. A 30 second Superbowl commercial spot costs $2 million compared to only a few thousand for spam. It's no coincidence that the large media conglomerates also want to eliminate spam. Because spam is extremely low cost, if advertisers switched to it, the media conglomerates would lose half their revenue. The broadcast companies would go out of business.
Losing spam would be tantamount to losing a vital tool for freedom of speech. If a middle- class person has an issue he wishes to send to the world, spam would be the most logical way of accomplishing it. Even with all the lawsuits currently being launched against spammers, it will not stop spam. Spammers are ready to simply move their businesses offshore, where the laws are more relaxed (or nonexistent).
BTW, Bill Gates wants to charge us 1¢ for using email as a way to "stop spam." Of course, Microsoft would naturally connect this fee. As a former stamp collector, I can tell you a stamp for US mail was once below a penny. Now it's 37¢. If you want to tell Microsoft what you think of his scheme to collect our money for sending emails, here's the address.
The bad points of eliminating spam is it stops ordinary people from reaching large audiences. Before the Internet, only the rich and powerful could afford to reach them. A skilled spammer can reach as many people as a Superbowl commercial, tens of millions of people. A 30 second Superbowl commercial spot costs $2 million compared to only a few thousand for spam. It's no coincidence that the large media conglomerates also want to eliminate spam. Because spam is extremely low cost, if advertisers switched to it, the media conglomerates would lose half their revenue. The broadcast companies would go out of business.
Losing spam would be tantamount to losing a vital tool for freedom of speech. If a middle- class person has an issue he wishes to send to the world, spam would be the most logical way of accomplishing it. Even with all the lawsuits currently being launched against spammers, it will not stop spam. Spammers are ready to simply move their businesses offshore, where the laws are more relaxed (or nonexistent).
BTW, Bill Gates wants to charge us 1¢ for using email as a way to "stop spam." Of course, Microsoft would naturally connect this fee. As a former stamp collector, I can tell you a stamp for US mail was once below a penny. Now it's 37¢. If you want to tell Microsoft what you think of his scheme to collect our money for sending emails, here's the address.
Great, finally someone taking action against all those lame-ass spammers in the world.
What they need to do, is do away with SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol). They need to come up with a way where people can't email anonymously, and use false email addresses. We need a protocol where everyone has to register for a secure email address, in order to send email. That email address should then be linked to a unique number or their IP address. That way, whenever you send email, your IP address or unique number, is tagged with every email. If you send spam, then they can track you!
I say make a new protocol that can track people!
What they need to do, is do away with SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol). They need to come up with a way where people can't email anonymously, and use false email addresses. We need a protocol where everyone has to register for a secure email address, in order to send email. That email address should then be linked to a unique number or their IP address. That way, whenever you send email, your IP address or unique number, is tagged with every email. If you send spam, then they can track you!
I say make a new protocol that can track people!
Originally posted by: mscdex0
Yes they should, because they failed to learn not to open email attachments from people you don't know
Also, they failed to install any type of antivirus software and/or keep it up to date.
Problem is some of these viruses spread through backdoors in the operating system....install SMTP engines....collect info from temp files....and spam. My company got hit with a few of these...despite being resonbly current on Win2k and WinXP security fixes and VERY current (clients get new definitions within 1 hour of being available).
Far as Bill Gates.... $.01 per email? ok.... that would really suck to get a bill for $10,000 because your internet appliance (tivo, etc) gets one of these backdoor viruses and spams without you knowing it.......
Anyways......
I don't think the 1cent bill coming up by Bill isn't a good idea. He just want $. But the point is the source of spam need to be track down and block.
I am so tired of getting those new spam. I'm not sure how to filter it. It's all code. I get at least 20 of it already in my yahoo inbox + spam box.
If there is something we can learn from history, is that man will always find ways. Better armor? Better weapons. Better lawyers? Bigger campaign contributions. We won't see the end of spam. Need viagra?
I was about to say I have been seeing a lot about SPAM lately and that they might be making a last ditch effort.
yup, this is the only way to truly stop spam.
i don't think it will fly. SMTP is too established.
ISP's and mail providers just have to implement anti-spam measurements into their SMTP servers.
normally this would be the case, but spam is a universal annoyance (except to the spammer of course). Who actually likes recieving spam? Really really really lonely people?
Are you a spammer by any chance?
I know of no one incident where spam was used effectivley to further a just cause. There are also simply to many "good spammers" sending out tens of millions of emails. Why? Becuase the cost IS to cheap. Let's look at spam like roadside billboards for a second. Driver can glance out the window of his car and quickly glance at the billboard and take notice of the product. It would be great if spam could work this way, but instead if billboards acted like spam they would be plastered on the road in front of the driver blocking his ability to see where he is going.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter