5 ms·
One problem I see with this is that if one's email somehow gets onto a spammer's list, there's likely no way to change their email address, since it's presumabl
by ValentineC 4y ago
One problem I see with this is that if one's email somehow gets onto a spammer's list, there's likely no way to change their email address, since it's presumably formed from an ID number of some sort.
- smileybarry 4y agoRight, I didn't think of that, that practically seals it I guess.
- Razengan 4y agoFix those problems: Better spam protection, more stringent penalties for spammers.
- numpad0 4y agoYeah, and harassments are going to be huge problem as well. Full names displayed anywhere unless necessary, is generally a bad idea. It's not going to work - IF taken at full face value without further considerations. That said, I think might make sense as an address system for signing and verification. It'd be nice if I could just sign into a local municipality or state-level server with a national ID to read notices and do verification, instead of walking to the city hall and twice in a week and uploading drivers_license.jpg to weird e-commerce websites on random occasions.
- e2le 4y agoIdeally it would only be possible to receive mail from the government and a select few entities (bank, electricity provider, etc). > presumably formed from an ID number of some sort. One possible solution is that the address for an individual must be obtained from a directory before sending a mail. Allowing for the possibility of changing it in the future. Access to that information can then be granted/revoked by the individual as they see fit. Something similar to re:claimID. https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/tech.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/tech.html
- ssivark 4y agoChanging an email address seems like a solution totally out of proportion to the pesky problem of spam. I can see many ways for the system to work effectively: 1. Have this "official" email only for communication with "state" entities, or some such filtered allow-list. It would be fantastic to have a high-SNR electronic channel for "all the important govt bureaucratic stuff". Folks could always forward mail to a unified inbox if they wish, but regardless they get an effective filtering tool. 2. For non allow-list entities, charge some trivial amount for every incoming mail that goes unread or gets flagged by a user as spam (or some such). I suspect this will quickly change the economics to make most spray-and-pray crap to become unviable. In essence, as with any communication system, I think the most important design goal is to have high SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio) channels which we can suitably label for specific delineated intents. We shouldn't be treating the inbox as a monolith with all pieces of uniform importance (or dictated by the shiny content of emails); we should be able to leverage IT to have the system work in the user's interest -- it's a matter of setting up incentives/responsibilities.
- realityking 4y agoGermany has tried setting up a parallel, email-like system where it cost money to send messages to avoid spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail Uptake has been so limited, it‘s essentially useless.
- avivo 4y agoHalfbaked thought: Have it cost half the amount as normal mail to receive email there. Perhaps also gov use is free, and users can whitelist specific domains or subdomains to be free.
- dpkirchner 4y agoBetter yet, you could allow emails cryptographically signed by chosen entities (*.gov, power company, etc) and reject everything else.