G
George Herold
Guest
it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?
George H.
Perhaps the cost is too high?
George H.
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
George Herold wrote:
What email?
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
What email?
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
R
Rich Webb
Guest
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
with the current POP3/SMTP protocols. It *would* have been possible in
the old days of closed systems; compuserve, for example, could have
charged a nominal fee to send an e-mail to another Compuserve customer.
Nowadays, not so much.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
This has been proposed at various times but it's not really feasible
with the current POP3/SMTP protocols. It *would* have been possible in
the old days of closed systems; compuserve, for example, could have
charged a nominal fee to send an e-mail to another Compuserve customer.
Nowadays, not so much.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
M
Michael Black
Guest
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, George Herold wrote:
find the proper newsgroup to post about.
Michael
post to a newsgroup, treating it like some sort of hangout rather than
find the proper newsgroup to post about.
Michael
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.
All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.
John
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.
All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.
John
J
Joerg
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
So how'd that sort of tax be enforced, say, at a server in Tadjikistan?
No new taxes. There's enough already.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
G
George Herold
Guest
On Feb 8, 8:20 am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
George H.
I don't know much about the details... Couldn't we change something?
George H.
G
George Herold
Guest
On Feb 8, 10:55 am, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
someplace.
George H.
Sorry about that.... My spam-o-meter hit the top and I had to vent
someplace.
George H.
G
George Herold
Guest
On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
world wide thing. Doesn't everyone have to have an ISP? Can't they
count emails coming from you and then add a bit to your bill?
drastically cut. With lots of screaming either way.
George H.
I have no idea about the details. Certainly it would have to be a
world wide thing. Doesn't everyone have to have an ISP? Can't they
count emails coming from you and then add a bit to your bill?
Hmm, I expect either taxes to increase and/or services to be
drastically cut. With lots of screaming either way.
George H.
G
George Herold
Guest
On Feb 8, 11:31 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
computer was spamming the world, I bet you would hurry up and fix
it!
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Yeah, but if you got a bill for $100 because a 'trojan' on your
computer was spamming the world, I bet you would hurry up and fix
it!
D
David Eather
Guest
On 8/02/2011 1:48 PM, George Herold wrote:
small amount of computation time (say about .1 of a second) attached to
it? Any mail that did not have a valid digest or was not in an exception
list could immediately be dumped as Spam. In addition a Hijacked PC
could not send so many letters and the user is more likely to notice the
drag on performance.
What if all legitimate mail had a message digest function the took a
small amount of computation time (say about .1 of a second) attached to
it? Any mail that did not have a valid digest or was not in an exception
list could immediately be dumped as Spam. In addition a Hijacked PC
could not send so many letters and the user is more likely to notice the
drag on performance.
R
Rich Webb
Guest
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:02:27 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
Medium answer: It has been tried. It didn't work. See, for example,
<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8318609&page=1>
Slightly longer answer: Conceptually, it would be possible to add
something like an X- header line that contains, say, a secure hash of
the message and a similarly secure token indicating that the message has
paid its "fee." An infrastructure similar to the certificate authorities
used to secure https transactions could act as the authenticating agents
and collect the appropriate fees from users. Message recipients could
then set their email clients to discard mail that did not have those
valid tokens.
I don't really see that happening. On the other hand, that could turn
out to be the Next Big Thing, and whoever gets it up and running might
be looking at a $12 billion IPO in a few years... ;-)
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Medium answer: It has been tried. It didn't work. See, for example,
<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8318609&page=1>
Slightly longer answer: Conceptually, it would be possible to add
something like an X- header line that contains, say, a secure hash of
the message and a similarly secure token indicating that the message has
paid its "fee." An infrastructure similar to the certificate authorities
used to secure https transactions could act as the authenticating agents
and collect the appropriate fees from users. Message recipients could
then set their email clients to discard mail that did not have those
valid tokens.
I don't really see that happening. On the other hand, that could turn
out to be the Next Big Thing, and whoever gets it up and running might
be looking at a $12 billion IPO in a few years... ;-)
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
S
Sjouke Burry
Guest
George Herold wrote:
and so cannot be taxed.
As far as your ISP is concerned, you are visiting a website,
talking to that site, and your ISP is unaware of the results.
netbased services, those mails never use your own ISP,
and so cannot be taxed.
As far as your ISP is concerned, you are visiting a website,
talking to that site, and your ISP is unaware of the results.
Guest
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
the cost? I seem to remember first class postage costing 2 cents...
Give governments a revenue source and they will milk it - then how
about a penny or two to download a megabyte?
Where does it end?
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
No that's not too high. BUT where does the money go? and who controls
the cost? I seem to remember first class postage costing 2 cents...
Give governments a revenue source and they will milk it - then how
about a penny or two to download a megabyte?
Where does it end?
Guest
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:31:23 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quit rewarding CEO's on the instantaneous stock price.
Now, what to do about commodities markets?
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
roulette wheel by stock traders.
Quit rewarding CEO's on the instantaneous stock price.
Now, what to do about commodities markets?
K
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:12:17 +0100, Sjouke Burry
<burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
from its sending ISP. The government gets nothing but the ISPs have an
incentive to add customers not spammers.
<burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
Tax Google. Or better, allow ISPs to collect $.001 on every email received,
from its sending ISP. The government gets nothing but the ISPs have an
incentive to add customers not spammers.
That's not email, either.
J
Joerg
Guest
George Herold wrote:
What if the king of Rarotonga says no?
consequence some smart folks who send mass emails would, of course, sign
up with a foreign ISP. How that should be handled with all those free
email services, I wouldn't have the foggiest. It's just not practical.
Supposedly some state workers drive around at times to "burn gasoline"
so that their department's gasoline budget for next year isn't cut. A
complete waste, plus they are on paid time doing a non-service to the
public. It's called "use it or lose it". That stuff needs to stop. Now.
Then there's the pensions ...
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
What if the king of Rarotonga says no?
In the US they could tax some, and then there'd be an uproar. In
consequence some smart folks who send mass emails would, of course, sign
up with a foreign ISP. How that should be handled with all those free
email services, I wouldn't have the foggiest. It's just not practical.
There's smarter ways. An example, fresh from this morning's paper:
Supposedly some state workers drive around at times to "burn gasoline"
so that their department's gasoline budget for next year isn't cut. A
complete waste, plus they are on paid time doing a non-service to the
public. It's called "use it or lose it". That stuff needs to stop. Now.
Then there's the pensions ...
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
A
amdx
Guest
"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8re2uiFb66U1@mid.individual.net...
Now, as far as spammers, hang them in the square.
Anything else? Oh, let's cut Jim's SS too.
Mikek
news:8re2uiFb66U1@mid.individual.net...
receiver.
Now, as far as spammers, hang them in the square.
Anything else? Oh, let's cut Jim's SS too.
Mikek
G
George Herold
Guest
On Feb 8, 2:53 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
think it will happen either.
George H.
Thanks for the link Rich, I didn't think it was a new idea. I don't
think it will happen either.
George H.
G
George Herold
Guest
On Feb 8, 3:12 pm, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll>
wrote:
some of my dollar in order that I see their adds, dat's fine!
George H.
wrote:
Hmm, can't I send $1 to google for my gmail. If google wants to cover
some of my dollar in order that I see their adds, dat's fine!
George H.