Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Message has been deleted.

Dec 6, 2003 7:44PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:STOP!! Hold it !!! Don't go any further !!! I don't want to pay !!!!!!
Dec 6, 2003 9:57PM PST

The filters are good enough. Nothing is perfect. And it wouldn't be perfect with pay email either.

- Collapse -
Mixed feelings ...
Dec 6, 2003 9:57PM PST

... re: per email charges. Email seems more akin to phone services than snail mail. Used to be much more popular to offer different plans for phone service -- e.g. low monthly fee but with per call/per minute charges for local and long distance, higher monthly fee with unlimited local and per call/per minute long distance charges, and now some companies are offering unlimited calls for one monthly rate. Seems internet service pretty much has been "served" on a fixed fee basis from the get go. Initially some discount providers offered per hour rates, etc. I don't think it's realistic to force ISP's to charge per email charges, so my guess is that any ISP that implemented such would lose business.

So, on the one hand it seems perfectly reasonable to charge per email just like a stamp on a snail mail, etc. But OTOH, it seems impossible to implement, and I wouldn't want it mandated by some international governing authority. I personally would seek out an ISP that offered an unlimited email option because I don't want to have to keep track of how many I send out or get a bill based on it.

Spam is easily avoidable by using a throwaway account for anything you register for on the net. I have one. I only use my work email for work, and only use our primary ISP email address for rare things. Given the choice between having to pay more to send email or doing a few simple things to avoid it, I choose the latter.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Interesting that this post IS a fine EXAMPLE OF SPAM...
Dec 6, 2003 11:21PM PST
designed to advertise his free website replete with undesirable POP-UPS.
- Collapse -
NT:also Interesting that i did a 'mod alert' over 4 hours ago.....
Dec 6, 2003 11:34PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Why...
Dec 7, 2003 12:50AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:cos.....
Dec 7, 2003 12:56AM PST

Ed used the word "interesting", if he had said "pisses me off" i would have said "also pisses me off"

true, no mod is 24/7 but some mods are 4/24 Happy

it was merely a "comment" not "criticism" Angeline...

jonah

- Collapse -
Re: cos.....
Dec 7, 2003 4:33AM PST

Hi, Jonah.

Maybe you meant no criticism, bt it sure was implied to the casual observer. Unfortunately, our Yahoop mailbox only shows dates of receipt, not times -- but assuming "over four hours" means between four and five, the time on your post about the modalert indicates the original post was received between 12:30 and 1:30 in the morning, I'm surprised the alert got acted on that fast on an early Sunday morning!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: cos.....
Dec 7, 2003 6:17AM PST

From: "jonah" <******@******.***.**>
To: "jonah" <******@yahoo.com>
Subject: time test
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:15:28 -0000

22:15

just wondered about that time thing....

- Collapse -
Don't know why it was deleted. It wasn't spam and I had no ulterior motive
Dec 7, 2003 3:26AM PST

I don't know why my message was deleted. It wasn't spam. I had no ulterior motive. I provided a link to my website so people could see my non-profit hobby. The pop-ups were put in by Geocites because they don't charge me for webhosting. I also posted over at Lockergnome and it is alive and well with many interesting replies at: http://help.lockergnome.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=13305

- Collapse -
Hi luem42 or may I call you M.D. Welcome. Although I did not
Dec 7, 2003 5:28AM PST

see your original post here in SE, I just read your post over at lockergname.com and assume the SE deleted post here was the same. That post there is not SPAM IMO. If you also gave your ww.geocities link, it just shows a listing of "coolsites" that you like. Incidently I bookmarked it as it may come in handy for me or someone in the future. (I reseached your name at geocities & found your site.)

Maybe some people here are sometimes gun shy because of old bad experiences, re deletion of your post.

I also am not in favor of a 1

- Collapse -
Re:Hi luem42 or may I call you M.D. Welcome. Although I did not
Dec 7, 2003 8:50PM PST

Yes you may call me MD or Mark Donaldson, I have nothing to hide. I think the newspaper article you are thinking about relates to an old internet hoax about congress proposing a 5 cent tax on email. This old hoax rears it's ugly head every year. If it cost a penny to forward this hoax maybe people would check the hoax sites like HOAXBUSTERS Home Page: http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/ before they forward these things.

- Collapse -
Re:Don't know why it was deleted. It wasn't spam and I had no ulterior motive
Dec 7, 2003 6:23AM PST

Hi, LM.

Sorry, but several members interpreted it as SPAM and sent modalerts. I wasn't the one who deleted it, but i've seen a copy, and I;d have done the same.

I think a better approach to banning SPAM is to ban Spam, not to force me to spend money out of pocket for now-free correspondence with friends and business acquaintances (to say nothing of my fellow volunteer Moderators). Do you have any idea how much such a charge would cost the typical university in a week? A penny a message sounds low, but with tens of thousands of messages a day, it mounts up fast!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Errr.......... Dave......
Dec 7, 2003 7:46AM PST

".....but i've seen a copy, and I;d have done the same."

You would have deleted his post as SPAM?? Pray tell what is Spam in this post of his so I'll have an idea for future reference on my posts? Granted, I don't, you don't, and probably others don't agree with his method of doing away with Spam, but what is he Spamming to SE or CNet here?:


**"There is only one way to stop spam. Spam filters don't work they just block some and also block legitimate email. Opting out won't work they've already sold your address. A do not spam list won't work there are to many ways to get around one. There is only one way to stop spam.

Spam works because it is cheap. When an advertiser sends you a snail mail (through the postal system) it costs them money. Even at bulk postal rates it costs them postage, printing and handling. If they send you several offers and you don't respond they stop sending it to you to lower their costs. Spam exists because it costs nothing but time and effort. The spammer will keep sending you spam because it doesn't cost any more if you respond or not. Therefore it is obvious. The only way to stop spam is to make sending emails cost money.

If it cost one cent, one penny, $0.01 to send an email this would stop spam. Think about it. I would be willing to pay one cent to send an email. I send out maybe 5 emails a day. If my ISP charged me one cent then it would cost me a $1.50 a month. I could easily afford that. Even better would be a minimum of say 10 free sends a day, over the minimum you pay.
(Continued - this will take several continued post)

- Collapse -
Continued.....Err.... Dave.....
Dec 7, 2003 7:51AM PST

But a spammer who sends out a million emails a day would have to pay $10,000.00. If the spam didn't return more income than it cost it would be a losing enterprise. The ISP that collects this email charge should be directed to use it to include additional email service ( asking for your authorization when more than 10 are sent ), virus and support services in their system. As a customer of the ISP you would have a set limit on the amount of emails you send a day.
My limit would be 10. As long a I sent 10 or less emails a day my ISP would do nothing and charge me nothing. Lets say I have 110 addresses in my address book and all of a sudden my computer sent out an email to everyone in my address book. My ISP would queue all of the emails and send me a notification asking whether I want to send these emails and be charged for them or review them, delete them or have the ISP check my system for spambots/trojans/viruses.

If I had sent them I would authorize them to be sent and a charge of $1 be added to my account. If I hadn't sent any of those emails I would review them and then delete them as spam and use my ISP's spambot/trojan/virus detection service to eliminate the problem.

If I was a legitimate advertiser I would be willing to pay one cent to email my customers. I get several emails a week from Computer Surplus Outlet. This would cost them about $1 a year to send me those email. In the last 2 years I have spent $200 with them. Their emails would cost effective.

"Free" newsletters wouldn't be affected because most are advertiser supported and the ones that aren't would just need an advertiser to defer the cost. My free "COOLSITES" newsletter would be affected. I started COOLSITES as a way to tell family and friends about interesting websites I found and to learn html. (Continued)

- Collapse -
Continued.....Err.... Dave.....
Dec 7, 2003 7:54AM PST

For me to continue as a free non profit newsletter I would need to get an advertiser or absorb the cost. Since it would only cost me the price of 2 stamps I don't think any advertiser would be willing to get involved. I would just send it out piece meal to stay under the daily limit.

So lets review:

Charging for sent email would not impact the home user and may stop them from just forwarding email hoaxes and chain letters. I don't know how many Jane Fonda is a traitor ( yes she did go to Nam but she didn't do what that email says she did ), Ollie North warned about Osama Bin Laden ( he talked about another terrorist not Bin Laden ) or forward this for good luck emails I have received.

The business user would just include the cost in the price of doing business which is tax deductible.

The free non profit newsletters would need to be advertiser supported, which most are, absorb the cost or start charging the recipients.

The spammer would have to pay through the nose.

The ISP would receive more income which should be used to increase customer services.

The only drawbacks are that all ISPs everywhere would have to do this. If even one doesn't then the spammers would use them which isn't so bad because if all the spammers used just one ISP it would be easy to block their address and the ISP would crash from the choking mass of spam. I think all ISPs would jump at this since it means more income and better public relations.

THE ONLY WAY TO STOP SPAM IS TO CHARGE FOR SENT EMAIL."**

- Collapse -
Idiots are the reason for spam
Dec 7, 2003 10:07PM PST

Because there must be enough idiots out there who actually respond to some spam with their cash the rest of us get inundated with it. Why not have an idiot tax? Of course that means the stupider elements of society would be paying a higher cost for their stupidity than the population in general, but then isn't that what liquor and tobacco taxes do already?

- Collapse -
Agree, and you are
Dec 8, 2003 1:17AM PST

addressing Mark indirectly...right?
As I attempted to explain to DaveK below....except for my 1st paragraph that I'm quoting here:
Quote:
"You would have deleted his post as SPAM?? Pray tell what is Spam in this post of his so I'll have an idea for future reference on my posts? Granted, I don't, you don't, and probably others don't agree with his method of doing away with Spam, but what is he Spamming to SE or CNet here?:"
Unquote.

the total balance of my 3 part above "continued" post are a quote from luem42 AKA Mark Donaldson.

- Collapse -
Re:Errr.......... Dave......
Dec 7, 2003 12:07PM PST

Hi, John.

He's a first-time poster to the forum, and his message contains a link to his web site for a "free newsletter." It thus smelled like SPAM to me, the Moderator who pulled it, and the two separate members who called it SPAM, either directly on the board or in a modalert. Since our standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" (we're not talking lethal injection here!) I suspect most reasonable people would have pulled it as SPAM. If the link is truly irrelevant, he's free to repost his message w/o it.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
"Free Newsletter" ? It's just a listing of his favorites/bookmarks put
Dec 7, 2003 1:49PM PST

on a web page that just takes a click like a bookmark/favorite to get to the sites. So he calls it "Coolsites & Favorites".

Take a look:
http://www.geocities.com/luem42/coolsites.html

I think it may be useful to many people and I have it now in my favorites/bookmark as a supplement.

JR

- Collapse -
Mark Donaldson is a first time poster ...
Dec 7, 2003 10:06PM PST

... in the new SE maybe, but he was a fairly frequent contributor in the old SE for a period of time. The "cool sites" reference immediately got my attention because back then Mark would often add under his siggy a "visit my Cool Sites I think you'll like them" or something like that.

The post reads a little like a spam, but if none of us can discuss our not-for-profit escapades or link to them, that's a bit much. It's a list of links people might find useful on a free site for crying out loud! If I'm reading you right it's the link you object to?

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
The Evie Stamp of Approval
Dec 7, 2003 10:09PM PST

We should set up a clearing house for new posters so they don't fall victim too quick in CNET forums.

- Collapse -
Knock it off James (NT)
Dec 8, 2003 12:31AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Errr.......... Dave......
Dec 7, 2003 12:09PM PST

Hi, John.

>>Think about it. I would be willing to pay one cent to send an email. I send out maybe 5 emails a day.<<
great. But I assure you, I send out many more than that (partly because I'm a volunteer Moderator). And it would cost my University thousands of dollars a year, and the same for most American business. Essentially, you prefer a direct tax (excuse me, "user fee") to simply outlawing the damned stuff. That clearly shows the difference between us in terms of proper government function.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Errr.......... Dave......
Dec 7, 2003 12:32PM PST

That quote is not mine Dave, it belongs to luem42. Except for the 1st paragraph, my 3 part "continued" post above is quoting luem42.

Meself, I don't want to pay any

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Errr.......... Dave......
Dec 7, 2003 12:51PM PST

Well Dave, I don't really prefer the charge, but there is the fact on the other foot that our government can't really do a damn about outlawing spammers. They'd just move off coast and we all know it.

And the cost to try to enforce such a ban maybe as high to the government as the user fee would be to businesses and public.

So not sure either worth discussion as better idea.

roger

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Don't know why it was deleted. It wasn't spam and I had no ulterior motive
Dec 7, 2003 8:01AM PST

Tens of thousands a day? external to the university? didn't realize it would be so high. Of course I guess with remote campuses etc, there would be a lot.

And email from members of the university to other scholars and agencies.

Now the ones from the students and faculty of a personal nature would be huge chore to track if not just lumped in with official email.

Correct me if I wrong, but the internal email would never actually go outside the LAN, so it wouldn't be included in any such scheme would it?

Just observations. There are a lot of problems with charging per email, even if there is some justification that the cost would deter spammers more than hurt casual users.

roger

- Collapse -
Re: Don't know why it was deleted. It wasn't spam and I had no ulterior motive
Dec 7, 2003 12:02PM PST

Hi, Roger.

My University (actually an academic health century) has many satellite clinics, provides the health care for the various facilities of the the Texas Department of Correction, and even has contracts for providing telemedicine to cruise ships and the US base at the South pole. Most of our researchers have off-campus collaborators with whom they routinely correspond via e-mail, there's continual e-mail interaction between researchers and their program officers at various funding agencies, etc., etc.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Employer email systems
Dec 8, 2003 12:41AM PST

I personally think anyone who sends email to/from an employer account is nuts.

I'm not in favor of this means of spam control, but it could certainly be adapted for transmissions between such official accounts. Then any other emails routed through the server would be billed to the person doing it. Most companies these days keep tabs on long distance calls, photocopies, etc., heck, it might actually HELP businesses control personal use of computer/email Happy

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Don't know why it was deleted. It wasn't spam and I had no ulterior motive
Dec 7, 2003 9:34PM PST

Why would you have deleted it. How could it be spam when it talk about stopping spam and advertised nothing except my advertising free (the single popup is put in by Geocities because they are a free webhost), non profit website.

Universities and other non profit, charitable organizations would be excempted from paying for sending email.

- Collapse -
OK, that did it. In all honesty, do you know...
Dec 7, 2003 10:12PM PST

how many "spam" messages I get telling me about some new way to stop "spam"? They go where all the rest of it does, filtered, disected, divided, and corelated by about 150 different conditions, all to end up in their new home called TRASH.