Sending email charge

Rabies

AOL are thing about charging users per email they send. This is to try and combat spam. Yahoo are expected to follow.

BBC News

I'm up for combating spam. Charging normal users is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion.
Governments should tackle the source of the problem and shut down the companies involved.

Terry

combat spam me bollix. just looking to make more money.
get yourself a proper filter and stop opening spam instead of complaining about it.

Rb

julep wrote:

combat spam me bollix. just looking to make more money

Exactly. Convenient excuse to make them some more money.

The_Minister

They should charge everyone who sends over 30 e-mails per day - that way you get spammers but not ordinary users.

Linoge

Firespinner wrote:

They should charge everyone who sends over 30 e-mails per day - that way you get spammers but not ordinary users.

I think that is definetly a good way to go, but then again, why dont they just cap the number of emails sent. Would prob be much easier

Either way, stopping spamming will never work as long as there are sites providing free email addresses, which there always will be..

BuffyBot

Do people even read these articles before posting OMG WTF postings? These charges are meant for genuine, approved commercial organisations. Not for your everyday Joe Soap sending emails..

In February AOL announced it was working with tech firm Goodmail to set up the certified e-mail charging plan for those that send millions of messages.

For small fees ranging from 0.25 of a cent to one cent per message, bulk e-mail senders could bypass AOL's junk mail filters and be sure that their messages get delivered to users

i71jskz5xu42pb

Rabies wrote:

AOL are thing about charging users per email they send. This is to try and combat spam. Yahoo are expected to follow.

BBC News

I'm up for combating spam. Charging normal users is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion.

Did you even read the article or was your knee jerk reaction preventing you from doing this. Nowhere in the article does it say that AOL are thinking about charging users per email they send. It says that AOL is planning on charging people (that want to pay it) for the ability to bypass AOL's spam filters.

AOL are a private company not in any privileged position on the internet. If they want to charge $10 for sending email it's their right to do so - if their customer do not like this then it's up to those customers to get a new ISP. It's called a free market.

Governments should tackle the source of the problem and shut down the companies involved.

Which government is it again that regulates the internet? The internet (with the exception of ICANN) does not work on the principle of top down regulation.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Firespinner wrote:

They should charge everyone who sends over 30 e-mails per day - that way you get spammers but not ordinary users.

Everybody that sends over 30 emails a day is a spammer. Seriously.

Rabies

PaschalNee wrote:

Which government is it again that regulates the internet? The internet (with the exception of ICANN) does not work on the principle of top down regulation.

The problem is people get hosting in countries where there will be no kick back over the way they do business.
If a guy registered a company here and got hosting in Ireland for the purpose of spamming I'm confident it wouldn't last too long.

BuffyBot wrote:

Do people even read these articles before posting OMG WTF postings? These charges are meant for genuine, approved commercial organisations. Not for your everyday Joe Soap sending emails..

I did, although I will admit not too indepth
What is there to stop the average Joe Soap send spam?
Either way, I think AOL and any other company considering this should be filtering emails for free.

Nice way to boost revenue I suppose

BuffyBot

I think AOL and any other company considering this should be filtering emails for free.

*sigh* Re-read again. The point is they are filtering emails for free...the problem is genuine mailings get caught up in the filtering process (mailing lists etc). Now vetted companies can pay to be on a "whitelist" which means their mails will go where they are meant to go..

i71jskz5xu42pb

Rabies wrote:

The problem is people get hosting in countries where there will be no kick back over the way they do business.
If a guy registered a company here and got hosting in Ireland for the purpose of spamming I'm confident it wouldn't last too long.

Where do you think most of the world's spam comes from - China, India, Korea? No - the US. What makes you think Ireland would do a better job than the US?

Controlling spam is really going to be down to a collaborative effort between the ISPs. I fail to see what the government are able to do - maybe you can explain who in the Irish government would take action against your hypothetical spammer mentioned above and under what legislation. Any examples of this ever having happened before?

Lump

That'll catch on :rolleyes: Have they not got enough money!

John

honru

rb_ie wrote:

MSN are also going to be charging users in the near future (link here).

That report is five years old.

Rb

f®eak s&#169 wrote: »

That report is five years old.

Lol, had it sent to me on wednesday and didn't even think of checking the date

Fast_Mover

lol!! good one rb_ie;)

Rb

Fast_Mover wrote:

lol!! good one rb_ie;)

We all make mistakes!Gimme a break!

Actually, that link(the 5 year old one) is doing the rounds on hotmail/bebo/msn messenger at the moment,there seems to be a sort of panic about it. Funny that not one other person spotted its age.

Fast_Mover

rb_ie wrote:

We all make mistakes!Gimme a break!

i only messing with you..calm..

rb_ie wrote:

Actually, that link(the 5 year old one) is doing the rounds on hotmail/bebo/msn messenger at the moment,there seems to be a sort of panic about it. Funny that not one other person spotted its age.

they're in such a state of shock/panic they probably dont look at the date me thinks..lol..!

Cosine

Hee Hee

I love the way some people freak when something like this does the rounds.

PaschalNee wrote:

Everybody that sends over 30 emails a day is a spammer. Seriously.

I dont send many emails but I have been known to send 50 - 100 emails in a sitting. Thats for important club announcements. If I was to get charged because I sent more then 30 emails how would that be fair?

i71jskz5xu42pb

Originally Posted by PaschalNee
Everybody that sends over 30 emails a day is a spammer. Seriously.

Cosine wrote:

Hee Hee
I dont send many emails but I have been known to send 50 - 100 emails in a sitting. Thats for important club announcements. If I was to get charged because I sent more then 30 emails how would that be fair?

My point exactly ... I was being sarcastic. The idea that sending 30 emails makes you a spammer is laughable - Think amazon, ebay, even Boards.ie.