Spam 2.0 and how to solve the problem

You know when The New York Times writes about a technology issue, it is a big deal. In an article today called Spam Doubles, Finding New Ways to Deliver Itself, Brad Stone describes the newer techniques of "image spam" (using just an image and not any text that anti-spam software can read) and other tricks that the bad guys are using.

The solution to the spam nightmare is simple. Just charge all senders one cent per email and the problem will be solved. This concept of email "postage" is not my original idea, but I have been talking about it for years. It just makes sense.

The problem with spam is that it is free to send, unlike print junk mail that requires a payment to the post office to send. Legitimate email marketers with a targeted list could afford to pay a penny per email, but spammers couldn't run a profitable business with such a requirement.

Yeah, I know there are problems with this idea. The whole global email system needs to be updated to accommodate it. And spammers may find ways to work around it. But it is worth it.

Comments

[Whitney]

There's something else that the proposed 1-cent-per-email solution might stop...or at least reduce:

The circulation of jokes, hoaxes, lists, chain letters, and other nonsense that most of us have seen a dozen times (plus) in the last decade but which some folks (the ones just now getting on the Internet) are seeing for the first time and feel compelled to share.

[Andrew Johnson]

Paying for email may make sense to citizens of the first world, but how about poorer countries where the average income is measured in 4 figures rather than 5 or 6?

It would take a joint venture between AOL, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo to do something like this -- and it would be an opt-in alternative to e-mail, not a replacement.

[Ruby Clifton]

Spam constitutes more than 80% of the total email traffic. You get more spam than the relevant mail in your Inbox.

Some stringent measures should be taken to deter these spammers