The Greed of Gates

[Ajax]

The Greed of Gates

Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates, among others, is now suggesting that we start buying "stamps" for e-mail.

I know it's not a new topic, but it's being discussed more frequently. Would you pay extra to send email?

My vote:

[M|x]

never in a million years. this is the one thing that should stay free, even though there is a lot of spam ou there

[High_Jumbllama]

**Explitive deleted** no!

Seeing as how easy it is to set up an email server, this would never work anyway. The governemnt would have to have control over and provide the servers themselves.

[PAugustin]

No way !
We are already paying for email service to ISPs !

[Tjalfe]

Maybe charge for emails over a set number per month, which only spammers would ever approach?

[KvHagedorn]

That's a better idea, tjalfe, but that would just be his foot in the door.. within a year every email would be charged. The problem is spam is not the problem in the eyes of someone like Gates. The problem is there is an excuse out there to take money from the average poor guy/girl and add it to his own massive hoard. We need a dragonslayer for this guy. He really is a menace to society.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
...We need a dragonslayer for this guy...

He came along as the dragonslayer to IBM.
The next one would be just as bad. Maybe worse.
The problem is that there needs to be a standard.
But for there to be a standard, one person or group needs the power.
And computing is becoming so important that whoever controls the standard is going to be VERY powerfull.
Not that I nessesarily disagree, just that it might not improve things as much as one might hope.
chuck

[SpiralDragon]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
We need a dragonslayer for this guy.

*taping claws on floor..... and what exactly do you mean by that ..... eh? dragonslayer eh?..... ...... hum time to flex my lungs.....


no but seriously....


the net is not something that can be controled.... period.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by SpiralDragon
...the net is not something that can be controled...

Too true.
Spamwise, though it's a load of Gamgee.
chuck

[MultimediaMan]

Oh puhleeeeeze...would somebody read the article?

Look at what he wants to do: He doesn't want to charge someone "monetarily", but require some mechanism to make it difficult/impossible to send a large number messages simultaneously. Solutions for server-side controls are already on the drawing board: e.g. Software that looks for valid return addresses, Malformed Message/Email headers, etc. before it burps out 1xE^15 messages about Viagra. Remember, these are suggestions as possible Add-ons for SMTP: the real solution is to ditch SMTP altogether for something else.

The next generation E-mail standard should include secure signatures, high level encryption (256Bit+) at the least.

[RedRed]

I dont agree MMan - high encryption only serves the state (with the resources to crack it).

I believe that a tightend SMTP standard IS the correct way to go...

The implication of replacing the whole of the mailing format for internal and external mail would be a horrendous burden. As upgrades to SMTP, the internal mail (plus the legacy apps that have maintained corporates) dont need to be 'fixed' - you can message internally as you want.... EXTERNAL mail is 'cloathed' properly or its not allowed out....

Kinda like walking nude round your house.... its OK at home, not nipping out for the sunday paper!

The second reason I am against encryption (rather than adding your own as needed....)....
At the moment, computers are really poor at working with really big primes - its why decryption is hard. If there was a big enough demand for decryption tools, 256 bit (or 1024 bit or whatever) computers would be built to 'slice' it... Rather than making it that easy, surely you need the flexability to be able to crank up the security as and when you need to. Encoding built into the standard spoils that.

RedRed

RedRed

[Ajax]

I did read the article. What is being proposed is either spending a small ammount of money per message/or commiting your CPU to donate time to solving problems. The ammount being charged may start out small, but who's to say what it will be in 10 years? I for one would rather keep Bill, or whoever, out of the cyber-cop business and leave my email rates alone. As for the CPU time, I'd much rather take the 10 seconds to purge all unwanted junk mail.

[UtwigMU]

It's not meant as stamps, but has-cash - require CPU to perform calculations prior to sending mail.

Problems:
- hijacked machines would still perform calculations
- 10s on dual 3GHz Xeon is not same as 10s on single PII 350

WRT to money:
- you still get unwanted snail-mail
- if there's a credit system it looses anonymity


And such ideas were already proposed (it's been discussed on Ars).

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Now, is this only for hotmail?

If it is, then I don't see how this campaign would work... I can setup my own SMTP server right here.

If the governments around the world start putting spammers into prisons, that's another story

[UtwigMU]

It's hard to put spammers into prison becasue of:
- spoofing
- ofshore, where it will still be legal

It would IMO be best to impose severe financial fines on companies that advertise through spam.