main

Making senders pay for spam

configure   on 21 March 2003 - 09:52 · 23 comments & 2822 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Companies and consumers alike have been looking to two primary aids in the battle to stem the flood of spam. On the practical side, they're turning to a seemingly endless parade of filters and other software products designed to slow the tide of unwanted E-mail by doing things such as checking messages against known spam, using textual clues to glean whether a message is spam, or blocking the IP addresses of known spammers. On the more hopeful side, they're pressuring legislators for federal laws banning spam.

IBM researchers say both approaches miss the target--that the software approach amounts to a constant game of trying to stay one step ahead of spammers, while legislation, if and when it comes, won't be able to address spam coming from outside U.S. borders. As a result, they've come up with another approach: Make spammers pay to send messages. It sounds absurdly simple, and Scott Fahlman, a research staff member at IBM's Watson Research Center, says it is. Fahlman is trying to build momentum behind a concept he's calling the "charity stamp" approach, which would force anyone sending unsolicited messages to pay to reach recipients participating in the program unless they had an authenticated code.

Fahlman has written a basic algorithm that could be used in software that would sit somewhere between the recipient's desktop and the supporting mail server or Internet service provider. It would sniff incoming E-mail and determine first whether a message is part of a recipient-defined whitelist of approved addresses. Those messages not on the list then would be scoured for a 10-digit code obtained from one of two sources--the above-mentioned software, or a "charity stamp" site that would issue authenticated codes for a fee. That fee, says Fahlman, would need to be small enough to be acceptable to legitimate E-mailers but large enough to prove too painful for spammers. Those messages lacking any authentication would be returned to the sender with a link to the charity stamp site and a statement that a stamp was needed for the message to be accepted.

News source: iTNews - Making senders pay for spam


Fahlman's vision is for the site to be managed by a nonprofit entity--hence the term charity stamp--thus turning the battle against spam into a potentially powerful fund-raising tool. Once built, the site would let E-mailers set up prepaid accounts and then use those funds to obtain stamps each time they wanted to get an E-mail through to an unknown recipient. Fahlman is trying to gain support within IBM for development of both the software and the Web site needed to get the system off the ground, but he's prepared to go outside IBM in search of companies that will take on the project. "The whole spam industry depends on spam being free to the sender," Fahlman says. "If we change the social rules of E-mail just a tiny bit, I think the whole problem of spam goes away."

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 23 additional comments
#1 Stingray on 21 Mar 2003 - 12:41
Good one. Let´s end this festering pool of crap that´s spam.
#2 Mr. Black on 21 Mar 2003 - 12:45
Unfourtanently, IMHO, there is no solution to the Spam problem, just like P2P - there is no stopping the piracy. The only effective methods of stopping Spam, that I can think of, is a global database of Spammers that a program checks when email arrives, and then deletes if from the spammer. There are other tools right now that are effective too, but there really is no 100% permanent solution. :disappoin [i]I wish I could go back and shoot the person who sent the first mass amount of Spam...[/i]
(1 reply) #3 georgi55 on 21 Mar 2003 - 13:27
In Japan all junkmails MUST say [Advertisement] on the subject, and it cannot be like [Adverti_ sement] or [A d v e r t i s e m e n t] or those type that tries to pass the junk mail filter. If the junkmail doesn't have the [Advertisement] in it, the firm could be sued and there were actual cases as well where a firm was pulled out of ISP, and the phone company, NTT disconected all phones from them as well. Do that in many places and they will go away.
#3.1 jkuy9 on 21 Mar 2003 - 16:08
It sounds like a good idea but what about people sending junk mail from another country? This is the problem at the moment. If there is no law in one country but the spammer send spam to a person in a country that does have anti-spam laws can anything be done? Most of the time the answer is no. Does this [Advertisment] in the subject actually stop spam? There needs to be some sort of international law stating that if anyone sends SPAM the recipient can sue, no matter what country they are from, if they did not request it. Something like that at least. I hate SPAM, I lost my email account of 6 years to it a while back. RIP
#4 leebobs on 21 Mar 2003 - 13:33
Yet another totally unenforceable policy... but a step in the right direction
#5 DOCa Cola on 21 Mar 2003 - 14:26
i hope something changes soon
#6 JaggedFlame on 21 Mar 2003 - 15:04
I don't think this is going to help much. Most senders will just think that the cost of sending spam is justified by the revenue they get from people reading it.
(1 reply) #7 DrunkenMaster on 21 Mar 2003 - 16:56
People are wasting their time trying to elminate SPAM with filters. Its time we cut them off permanently from the 'Net. I think if the spammer has a static connection, like Mr. Ralsky the #1 spammer sending 50% of spam, the server should instead DDOS their sever to death. I don't know if the Catalog and CD subscriptions he's been signed up for is actually working or making him send more spam.
#7.1 YaddaMe on 22 Mar 2003 - 05:15
[neoquote=#7.0 by DrunkenMaster]People are wasting their time trying to elminate SPAM with filters. Its time we cut them off permanently from the 'Net. I think if the spammer has a static connection, like Mr. Ralsky the #1 spammer sending 50% of spam, the server should instead DDOS their sever to death. I don't know if the Catalog and CD subscriptions he's been signed up for is actually working or making him send more spam. [/neoquote] I know.. it's almost sad. I wonder if Ralsky costs his providers more in dealing with spam than they charge him for his massive network needed to send them. He's pretty much publicly known now... yet still continues to operate. No candy-ass idea of a "whitelist" (that adds more hassle to the recipient) will stop these guys.
#8 Eduardo on 21 Mar 2003 - 18:01
I dont think it works. If you subscribe to my mailing list, but you dont put me in your white list, I have to pay?? Obviusly this could defeat the purpose of email. and...remember the problem with different currency in all the world. 1 dollar could be much more in other countrys making it very expensive sending emails if you dont know if the recipients have you in their white list
#9 chilliadus on 21 Mar 2003 - 18:08
I agree there's no solution, and probably never will be, because it's not possible for a software or a server or a service provider to determine if a message was a spam (unsolicited) or a subscribed newsletter (user approved).
(1 reply) #10 decarteret on 21 Mar 2003 - 20:41
How about this idea: Apply a cost to sending an email--$1.00 due to the sendee per message. If the email is wanted, the sendee simply replies (manually or automatically) to the sender, which costs $1.00 due back to the sender and therefore cancels out the debt. If the email is unwanted, as in the case of spammer, the spammer would owe millions after their first campaign. In most cases, this would eliminate spam and in some cases we might actually make a little bit of money for reading ads. You can be sure that if the spammer is willing to pay $$$ to send out an ad campaign that the ads will be well designed, entertaining and worthwhile... not G E T Y O UR D I PL O M A!!!
#10.1 JaggedFlame on 21 Mar 2003 - 21:19
And if I just wanted to screw someone over, I could just bill them for a dollar when they sent me an e-mail? What if I was really pissed off at a friend that day and he sent me an e-mail and I charged him a dollar? That sounds like potential abuse to me.
#11 Tobbe on 21 Mar 2003 - 20:44
I could kill to get rid of spam.
#12 Pride on 21 Mar 2003 - 20:58
I think that 1 dollar is a little steap. Unless it is the SuperBowl, no company is going to pay 100,000 dollars to send an advertisment. We might be talking about .02 cents or something. To which, noone at home would make that much money.
#13 btallack on 21 Mar 2003 - 21:20
Spam, Spam, Everywhere more Spam...
(2 replies) #14 westonb_2005 on 22 Mar 2003 - 01:25
How about this: Each e-mail that is sent from a mailing list must have an unsubscribe button at the bottom of the e-mail that is clearly visible and if it doesn’t you can forward the e-mail to the people that stops spam and the sender gets in treble. Also if the link doesn’t work or no action is done after you send a request and you can prove it (by using the Print Screen button when you send the unsubscribe request and the e-mail sent after you sent the request) then they can get prosecuted also because it will be considered unsolicited.
#14.1 Quick Reply on 22 Mar 2003 - 01:56
many spams do have unsuscribe buttons at the bottom... the problem is, if you click it, it verifies that there is someone on the other end of the address and then they give you more
#14.2 westonb_2005 on 23 Mar 2003 - 05:44
But what I mean is that if the e-mails don't stop then they could get prosecuted for sending unwanted e-mail or if it is from a diffent company you didn't agree to then they would have sold or gave away info that they should have.
#15 YaddaMe on 22 Mar 2003 - 05:07
This looks like more headaches than anything. The idea of a whitelist is absurd. Lets say you place a one-time order for some good or service, or signup for an opt-in list that requires email verification, etc etc (many many examples). Before you could get your receipt, or verify your email, you'd have to add them to your whitelist. Waaaaaaaaaaay too much hassle for your avg user to remember/figure out, and for your "power-users" to deal with constantly. Nice idea on paper, horrible in the real world. I'll just use my own custome filters, and the delete button than want to hassle with constantly adding approved senders to a list.

Last edited by 10547 on 22 Mar 2003 - 05:16
#16 wildliquid on 22 Mar 2003 - 14:13
i doubt it will work... but at least they are coming up with ideas to combat it
#17 wildliquid on 22 Mar 2003 - 14:14
and yeah they need to casterate spamers [URL=http://lonegunmen.solarworlds.com]lonegunmen[/URL]
#18 abusehawk on 23 Mar 2003 - 02:22
Working for an Abuse Team for a National ISP, I personally think the only way possible to rid the is to ship them off to an island that has not electricity and phone lines. But what is suggested above does sound like a good idea, however I don't personally see how this will work. I would like to see that it work. However you would have to get the Chinese Goverment, and all of their ISP's to agree to it. However this won't work, and i know it will not. I will continue to have the job of being able to cancel spammers, and continue to work in the AUP Violation Department. Abusehawk

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)