Worst idea I have heard in awhile

[mairving]

From Bill Gates no less:

Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/index.html)
Paying for e-mail seen as anti-spam tactic

[doctorgonzo]

In the long run, that is only one of a few ideas that will work to get rid of spam.

Economically, e-mail spam is great because there is no incremental cost for additional addresses. Sending an e-mail to one person costs exactly as much as sending an e-mail to a million people (once you have a million addresses). No other form of mass marketing works that way. If you want to call twice as many people, you pay twice as much. If you want to send out twice as much junk mail, you pay twice as much. The added cost means that telemarketers and junk mailers can't afford to send stuff out to everybody and have low response rates. With e-mail spam, you can have a response rate of .01% and it will still work, because you don't spend any more money to get an audience large enough to sustain a low response rate.

[juppy]

Well, it might slow down the amount of spam but I think it'll deter normal people moreso than it will the spammers. They'll find ways around it...it would just be another obstacle that they'd have to find a loophole or shortcut through and the spam would go on, while the rest of the users that aren't sending spam end up paying the bulk of it.

[ghost2003]

solve a math puzzle before sending a e-mail, are they nuts!?
Even if it is just 1 cent, I pay for the connection, thats how I pay my emails! And there will be no such thing as free email sites anymore, what about people who have no credit cards or paypal and wanna make a hotmail account or something?

[CrazyMike]

It's a dumb idea, what if you use mail through your ISP (Symaptico, AOL, etc.)? Microsoft can't force them to use this new email stamp.

[morriswindgate]

While I tend to agree that in a short term this would reduce spam, in the long term it would force the spammers to go another route, namely, stealth ad-ware.
There is two problems with spam is that number one, the majority of spammers are in the USA and two the Congress of the United States has made this possible. Ever hear the term "Opt Out?" Yes our wonderful government had a chance to pass a law that would have been an Opt In (you have to give permission), but they fell for the money. (By the way John Kerry was a big opponant of the Opt In clause).
Although it borders on a privacy issue, my belief is that the way to reduce both spam and virus e-mails is that software must be developed that would include a fixed machine ID that would be embedded in each E-Mail that when it was first sent from that machine, the machine ID would be verified by the host ISP and that computer's IP address would then be embedded in that E-Mail at the server level.
This would give a positive ID back to the originating computer, no matter how many times it jumped. It would not stop Zombies that the top hackers use, but it would stop script kiddies and force spammers to adhere to present laws requiring true identities.

[Craig100]

I don't like the idea for reasons stated above. i think spammers should just get there act together. and enjoy the real benefits of E-mail.

[Markoman01027]

if that idea ever pulls through, I will no longer use e-mail. period. That is stupid.

[mb26]

what about the option where you have list of 'allowed' people.. emails from them go through fine.. and if you are not on this list and send an email to you, then they get sent something, like one of those pictures of letters jumbled up (as used on sign-up forms)..
if they reply correctly to this, then the email is allowed through..

i can't remember the software that has this (maybe it is associated with an ISP i can't remember)

If MS were to integrate this into outlook express etc, it would make life a lot harder for spammers...

there is no way that even bill gates could make people pay for email.. every ISP and country in the world would have to agree.. and what about the exchange rates.. people would be sending their email via other countries to save money..
even if the above occured, people would find ways to continue free emails.

look at how p2p has kept going?

(also, about kerry,.. i'm sure if bush supported the opt in thing then it would have gone through kerry was pretty powerless then.. anyway i think starting wars costing $billions and crippling the economy are a bit more important than that issue.. ) .. although i do agree the opt out system is STUPIDITY itself, as everyone knows that the 'opt out' buttons will just lead to more spam.

theres my 2/c (which i will not be spending on email!), and i hope it made sense :)

i did like how it said that u could set your own rates so that important people could make it expensive for you to email them lol.

[Markoman01027]

They just want to go right out with the idea, without even getting the public's opinion on it, and wheather the public wants it or not. it's wheather Bill Gates wants it or not.

[gerberdude]

"Wow." That is all I have to say. . .that, and "More money than sense."

The dude

[ghost2003]

And who gets the $ from those stamps? *caugh*Bill*caugh*

[oddjob]

Great idea *sarcasm*, too bad it won't work. Postal fees haven't stopped anyone out there from mailing "pre-approved credit card applications" to the world. I'd have hundreds of credit cards by now if I returned every one I've ever received.

Stamps don't stop regular junk mail, electronic stamps won't stop spam.

[pam123]

How many e-mails does PCMech send out in a day ?
Enen at 0.01 a message I bet it would be costly.