32 ms·

I think it is worth noting this form: http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt And in short: (X) users of email will not

I think it is worth noting this form: http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt And in short: (X) users of email will not put up with it (X) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers specifically, your plan fails to account for: (X) extreme profitability of spam (X) joe jobs and/or identity theft (X) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (X) outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply: (X) whitelists suck I would like to conclude that this is not some snarky elitist comment to this insightful blog post. I'm simply stating that spam is a very old problem, and many people have spent a lot of time trying to stop it. This form exists as a reminder that many of these options have been thought up before, tried, and found to fail. We've learned from some of our mistakes :)

indiejade 18y ago
Just because spam is an "old" problem doesn't mean it's not solvable. For example, if someone were to build a working prototype or something that demonstrates to advertisers that a pull method actually works better for generating sales/ interest/ revenue than spam, companies might be more willing to invest in infrastructure conducive to pull. Spam is "profitable" because of the low cost of spamming a bunch of random people at once. I think the article is making the point that there are alternative low-cost solutions which can be targeted more precisely to an audience that is actually interested in the source of the "spam," thus making it much less annoying.
tomjen 18y ago
That for exist so people on slashdot can write a post before they loose interest. Half of your points assume _everybody_ is going to use this system and the other points are simply wrong.

indiejade 18y ago

Just because spam is an "old" problem doesn't mean it's not solvable. For example, if someone were to build a working prototype or something that demonstrates to advertisers that a pull method actually works better for generating sales/ interest/ revenue than spam, companies might be more willing to invest in infrastructure conducive to pull. Spam is "profitable" because of the low cost of spamming a bunch of random people at once. I think the article is making the point that there are alternative low-cost solutions which can be targeted more precisely to an audience that is actually interested in the source of the "spam," thus making it much less annoying.

tomjen 18y ago

That for exist so people on slashdot can write a post before they loose interest. Half of your points assume _everybody_ is going to use this system and the other points are simply wrong.