3 ms·

I'm always wary of email/spam solutions that require 'payment' of some form. See https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

I'm always wary of email/spam solutions that require 'payment' of some form. See https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt for a lot of reasons (in particular, Unpopularity of weird new taxes, Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money, Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical, Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually, Sending email should be free)

eli 12y ago
It also makes it suddenly expensive to run a decent sized email list. For security announcements, say.
- eric_bullington 12y ago
  No, the idea is that users would be able to set an incoming fee per email address, including a default fee for unknowns. Users would simply whitelist email subscriptions at 0 fee. In fact, this could likely be done completely automatically beyond the initial setup (and then only if you want to diverse from the defaults).
  - x0x0 12y ago
    And recipients could set it at 0 for mailing lists, or any email with which he or she has conversed.
x0x0 12y ago
It's convenient sometimes that sending email is free, but remember the fascinating read about the gmail anti-spam measures, and how they require central knowledge? I'd bet you can satisfy 99.9% of my antispam needs with 2 rules: 1 - if I've ever sent an email to your address and haven't blacklisted you, you get to my inbox 2 - everyone else, pay 2-3 cents Note that mailing lists, via an email opt-in, would pass under rule 1. As for everyone else, if emailing addresses that have never conversed with you isn't worth a couple pennies, rethink sending the email.
eterm 12y ago
I agree, and is partly why I think it would never take off. But it wouldn't need to be seen as a "tax" if the money went to the recipient of the email, and any prices were set by those recipients.

eli 12y ago

It also makes it suddenly expensive to run a decent sized email list. For security announcements, say.

eric_bullington 12y ago
No, the idea is that users would be able to set an incoming fee per email address, including a default fee for unknowns. Users would simply whitelist email subscriptions at 0 fee. In fact, this could likely be done completely automatically beyond the initial setup (and then only if you want to diverse from the defaults).
- x0x0 12y ago
  And recipients could set it at 0 for mailing lists, or any email with which he or she has conversed.

x0x0 12y ago

It's convenient sometimes that sending email is free, but remember the fascinating read about the gmail anti-spam measures, and how they require central knowledge? I'd bet you can satisfy 99.9% of my antispam needs with 2 rules: 1 - if I've ever sent an email to your address and haven't blacklisted you, you get to my inbox 2 - everyone else, pay 2-3 cents Note that mailing lists, via an email opt-in, would pass under rule 1. As for everyone else, if emailing addresses that have never conversed with you isn't worth a couple pennies, rethink sending the email.

eterm 12y ago

I agree, and is partly why I think it would never take off. But it wouldn't need to be seen as a "tax" if the money went to the recipient of the email, and any prices were set by those recipients.