PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft and Yahoo want us to pay for email...



Disko
4th February 2004, 12:47 AM
<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/03/1075776062664.html' target='_blank'>[b]
The days of sending emails for free may be numbered. The owners of the two largest email systems in the world, Microsoft and Yahoo, are considering ways of imposing a "postage" fee for emails.

Internet experts have long suggested that the rising tide of junk email, or spam, would turn into a trickle if senders had to pay even as little as one cent for each message.

And Bill Gates, Microsoft&#39;s chairman, has told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that spam would not be a problem in two years, partly because of systems that would require people to pay to send email.

By making emailers buy electronic "stamps" - in fact, encrypted code numbers - the illegal spammers could be forced to identify themselves, or give up.

A one cent charge might be minor for most emailers, but it could destroy spamming businesses that send a million offers in the hope 10 people will respond.

Neither Yahoo nor Microsoft has made a firm commitment to charging postage, in part because the idea still faces substantial opposition among internet users.

While it could give them a big stream of revenue, academic researchers have proposed complex stamp systems in which email recipients would be ones who set the price on messages before they could enter their in-boxes. Mr Gates even suggested a system that would allow users to waive charges for friends and relatives.

Yahoo is quietly evaluating an email postage plan being developed by Goodmail, a Silicon Valley start-up company. It proposes that only high-volume mailers pay postage at first - a cent per email.

The money would go to the email recipient&#39;s internet access provider. But the company suggests that the internet providers share the payments with their users, either through rebates or by lowering monthly fees. Under this system, a mass emailer would sign up with Goodmail, buying a block of stamps - encrypted code numbers that it would insert in the header of each email message.

If the internet provider of the recipient participates in the system, it decrypts the stamp and submits it to Goodmail. Only then is the sender&#39;s account charged a cent and the receiving service provider paid the money, minus a service fee for Goodmail.

Senders would not pay for stamps that were not used, but they would pay whether or not an email recipient read the message.

However, some experts fear big spammers will be happy to pay the postage. "It is the spammers who are the ones with the big pockets," says Charles Stiles, manager of the postmaster department at America Online, who worries such a system might restrict the wrong mail.

AOL is taking a different approach and is testing a system under development by the Internet Research Task Force.

The system, called the Sender Permitted From, or SPF, creates a way for the owner of an internet domain, such as aol.com, to specify which computers are authorised to send email with aol.com return addresses.

That allows a recipient&#39;s email system to determine whether a message being represented as coming from someone at aol.com really is from that address. Most spam being sent now uses forged return addresses.

Microsoft has been floating a similar proposal, labeled "caller ID", that could be expanded in the future to accommodate more sophisticated anti-spam approaches including internet postage systems.

Discussions are under way among the backers of SPF, Microsoft and others involved in email to reach a compromise sender notification system.

All these proposals can run into problems because there are legitimate cases when mail sent by one domain claims to be from another. For example, online greeting-card services will send messages with the return address of the person sending the card, even though the message does not go through the sender&#39;s email account.

People taking part in the discussion say that companies such as greeting-card services may need to change their e-mail software to comply with the new standards.

"Every proposed scheme will break parts of the way email works today," said Hans Peter Brondmo, a senior vice-president of Digital Impact who has represented big emailers in the spam technology negotiations.

The challenge, he said, is to find a system that will require as little retrofitting as possible to email systems.

I&#39;ll never pay for email - and that&#39;s how it is. I&#39;ll sooner be living in a cave than paying for something that is basically free to provide. Infact, now i&#39;m disgusted that i pay for sms. :angry:

jameso
4th February 2004, 07:32 AM
no one will pay for email. so i hope they try and charge us.

jameso

elvis
4th February 2004, 11:58 AM
what a crock. email is just data over TCP like everything else. to try and pay for it twice (ie: once through your ISP, and once again through a "stamp" is bullshit. bill needs his head looked at.

SMTP will evolve and change. currently SMTP is far too trusting of the sender, and everyone knows this. eventually we&#39;ll see a revised SMPT that will have much more handshaking and authentication/PGP/VPN type stuff happening that will force SPAMmers to reveal their locations instead of hiding behind fake headers.

THAT will stop spam. paying for email is just another one of gates&#39; bullshit over-capatalised ideas.

Disko
4th February 2004, 12:29 PM
paying for email is just another one of gates&#39; bullshit over-capatalised ideas.
Exactly. This is what is wrong with the world today.

the_argon
4th February 2004, 02:18 PM
I couldn&#39;t argee more with elvis...

I mean really everything is getting out of hand...

I don&#39;t & won&#39;t tolerate the corporate attitude that the public will pay for eveything blah, blah, blah keep the shareholders happy...

"How do we stop xxx doing/using xxx? I know&#33;&#33; Charge them for it, that will deter the abusers, and people who can&#39;t afford it anyway but we will get a few suckers and increase revenue at the same time&#33;"

I can see the upside for some uses like including a surcharge for plastic bags but even then the major retail stores should be the ones being charged because they are giving them away to their customers. They need to be the people that are making the difference, acting responsibly

Generally the idea that &#39;the public&#39; will pay for services that they can get elsewhere for free is fucked.

We &#39;the public&#39; seem to be getting screwed at every point, when will corporate "big wig&#39;s" realise enough is enough? When will shareholders give their precious 1 or 2 cent&#39;s a share back to help save the earth or a buch of starving children?

</rant>

Summary: capitalism is shit&#33;

jameso
4th February 2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by the_argon@Feb 4 2004, 02:18 PM
I mean really everything is getting out of hand...
yes, it is.

jameso

LCGuy
4th February 2004, 05:19 PM
There is no way i&#39;m paying for email. Fuck that. I&#39;ll just start using my uni email for everything.

jameso
5th February 2004, 07:28 AM
yeah but some one will have to pay for your uni email. There was also the idea to charge about 10 seconds computer time for every person u are emailing. Too bad it would stop a mass legitimate mail from going out over any thing but a supercomputer.

Every email should be signed with a public/private encryption scheme.

jameso

the_argon
5th February 2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by jameso@Feb 5 2004, 07:58 AM
There was also the idea to charge about 10 seconds computer time for every person u are emailing.
Wouldn&#39;t that be double dipping on their (the uni) part?

Charging for computer time AND charging more computer time to send mail?

jameso
5th February 2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by the_argon@Feb 5 2004, 09:02 AM
Wouldn&#39;t that be double dipping on their (the uni) part?

Charging for computer time AND charging more computer time to send mail?
sorry, i wasn&#39;t paying much attention this morning, just smile and move on people.

=)

dum de dar dum de dar dum dum de dar dum

jameso

stevejay
5th February 2004, 11:34 AM
The idea of sender pays is a nice ideal - we all pay for email in our ISP fees anyway, just we pay to receive it and share the cost via our ISP of recieving spam, regardless of whether we receive 10 spams a day (like my wife) or 10 000 (like me, but I exaggerate a bit)

For ordinary stiffs it works - If you were charged by your ISP for a typical number of emails/month, but that cost were embedded in your isp fees and an excess was charged if you went over, then any ordinary bloke who spams or mailbombs, gets caught.

The problem is the really evil bastards just buy big pipe with no server needs and hook their own servers to it and pay for basic bandwidth.

And be careful wishing for encrypted certification, that&#39;s one of Macroplop&#39;s great white hopes. You could find yourself unable to email a PCer if their standard becomes law&#33;

The solution to spam is complex and has no single panacea. In the end it might involve a mix of paying for upload instead of download, certification, some built-in AI in network interfaces and still a bit of human intervention.

jameso
5th February 2004, 11:50 AM
"And be careful wishing for encrypted certification, that&#39;s one of Macroplop&#39;s great white hopes. You could find yourself unable to email a PCer if their standard becomes law&#33;"

I see no problem using at least a digital signature on all emails but if some one tries to force us into a proprietary encryption scheme that will be lunched, shot and or forgotten in seconds. Of course, if any one can do it, microsoft will....

jameso

[edit] on not in emails

pipsqeek
9th February 2004, 12:48 PM
I have inside news about M&#036; and their future release of their long awaited version of their new bug...I mean operating system, LongHorn.

I am a member of an Astronomy Club in Sydney. One of our members has a alpha copy of Longhorn that he is testing, which is said to be released sometime in the next two years.

I use a mulitude of OS&#39;s, OSX and linux mainly but being a network engineer (student, not employed) I have to use the emeny&#39;s OS. Bill does keep sys admins working. He does create jobs for the IT market.

Anyway.... The OS is to be bundled with various M&#036; products such as Office and other crappy tools. Here is the really sickening part..besides using it.

Longhorn is to be used on a pay per use basis. When you click on the Word icon to start it, credits will be deducted from your license account. When you have used them up, you pay money to use the software again. Everytime you use your PC, you will have to pay money, electronically, to use it. Imagine the costs when you think about how many times you have to restart the damn machines running this OS as it is.

If you are concerned about this info being dodgey...well, I was too, until i was shown it.

One major thing I see happening is that, there are people still not on the internet, or on dial up if they are. To use the OS, and its assocciated programs you would have to be connected all the time.

I looked at my fellow club member in fear, that all OS&#39;s will follow, but I hope that this screws M&#036; to the point where they are shot down with their own gun.

I looked at him in fear about how this is going to really screw things us for alot of people.

I guess Linux Distros will be happy as well as Apple etc....

Disko
9th February 2004, 01:36 PM
pipsqeek, you got any evidence of that at all? Like a screenshot? I beleive you - but it&#39;d be great to have some proof. That sounds so fucked up.

the_argon
9th February 2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by pipsqeek@Feb 9 2004, 01:18 PM
I have inside news about M&#036; and their future release of their long awaited version of their new bug...I mean operating system, LongHorn.

I am a member of an Astronomy Club in Sydney. One of our members has a alpha copy of Longhorn that he is testing, which is said to be released sometime in the next two years.

I use a mulitude of OS&#39;s, OSX and linux mainly but being a network engineer (student, not employed) I have to use the emeny&#39;s OS. Bill does keep sys admins working. He does create jobs for the IT market.

Anyway.... The OS is to be bundled with various M&#036; products such as Office and other crappy tools. Here is the really sickening part..besides using it.

Longhorn is to be used on a pay per use basis. When you click on the Word icon to start it, credits will be deducted from your license account. When you have used them up, you pay money to use the software again. Everytime you use your PC, you will have to pay money, electronically, to use it. Imagine the costs when you think about how many times you have to restart the damn machines running this OS as it is.

If you are concerned about this info being dodgey...well, I was too, until i was shown it.

One major thing I see happening is that, there are people still not on the internet, or on dial up if they are. To use the OS, and its assocciated programs you would have to be connected all the time.

I looked at my fellow club member in fear, that all OS&#39;s will follow, but I hope that this screws M&#036; to the point where they are shot down with their own gun.

I looked at him in fear about how this is going to really screw things us for alot of people.

I guess Linux Distros will be happy as well as Apple etc....
Are you sure this isn&#39;t for the alpha only...

I don&#39;t see how MS could pull that off on such a huge scale...

My bet is it&#39;s an anti piracy tactic for the alpha/beta&#39;s

pipsqeek
9th February 2004, 02:06 PM
I shall see if I can get the guy at the Astronomy Club (which I frequent every Thursday evening) to get me a screen shot.

But I don&#39;t know how this is going to prove that you have to pay for it each time you use it.

But i will try to ask him this week if he can email me a grab of the screen.

I looks very ricey. but I would never get it.

Steve

LCGuy
9th February 2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Disko@Feb 9 2004, 01:36 PM
pipsqeek, you got any evidence of that at all? Like a screenshot? I beleive you - but it&#39;d be great to have some proof. That sounds so fucked up.
I agree. If they did this with the retail version it&#39;d definately fuck them up in the long run.