[Gllug] Paying to send email..

[Dan Stevens (IAmAI)]

> This is all true, though I suspect that the big spammers won't bite - they
> send out millions of their emails because the marginal cost is all but
> zero. If the marginal cost is even 0.25c then it becomes less sensible -
> particularly given the dismal quality of most spams anyway.

The whole idea is so pointless and paradoxical, it's boggling my mind!
AOL/Yahoo claim/appear to have invented this idea because spam is a
problem. The fact that spam is a problem demonstrates the fact that
their spam filters are poor, and that AOL/Yahoo's spam filters are not
hampering the effectiveness of spamming. Thus, as the spam filters are
poor, there is no need to 'open the opportunity' to bypass the filters
as it provides no advantage for spam; if there was need to, spam
wouldn't be a problem because the spam filters would prevent the
majority of spam, thus spammers would not spam or spam elsewhere.

Are you finding my explanation difficult to understand? Good!
Paradoxes are inherently difficult to understand, so if you are
finding it difficult to understand, then it proves a paradox exists.

The idea that paying for emailing is meant to tackle spam, as
demonstrated, is a paradox, therefore AOL/Yahoo cannot actually be,
unless they are out of their minds, considering this as a method of
tackling spam. The only possible explainations is that this is some
kind of money making scam, in which AOL/Yahoo try, relying on this
'paradox', to convince people that spending money on this going to
tackle spam (unless there is a significant number of illogically
minded people/businesses, this will fail), or there is a problem of
ligitimate, non-spam emails being blocked by spam filters, thus
AOL/Yahoo are allowing the oportunity to bypass them, using a charge
to prevent spammers from abusing them.

I do think the latter does actually occur, and preventing it may very
well benfit some parties. This is, as long as it is not abused, and
charging money for this is as good as any method I can think of to
prevent abuse; I'm sure any ligitimate business will be willing to pay
to make sure their 'Thank you for registering. Please active your
account' emails get through, so for this reason, and for this reason
only, the idea is good. *However*, the only method of effectively
tackling spam, is spam filters and *not this idea*. Thus, *I wish
people would not claim that this is meant to tackle spam, because it
cannot, and I don't want to hear of it again!!!* Everyone, please pass
this on and tell the world. Thank you.

On 06/02/06, Adrian McMenamin <adrian at mcmen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 February, 2006 12:17 pm, David Damerell wrote:
> >
> > Who would be most likely to want their messages not sent through spam
> > filters? People who aren't sending spam have a small worry about false
> > positives. People who _are_ sending spam have a large worry about
> > non-false positives. Who can most afford to pay to send email? People
> > who expect to make money off the email.
> >
>
> This is all true, though I suspect that the big spammers won't bite - they
> send out millions of their emails because the marginal cost is all but
> zero. If the marginal cost is even 0.25c then it becomes less sensible -
> particularly given the dismal quality of most spams anyway.
>
> $25 on an outlay of nothing is good value, $25 on an outlay of $250 is
> obviouly not going to happen.
>
> So expect the Banks and so on to use it to send out the equivalent of junk
> email - the viagra spammers won't bother.
>
> Still not acceptible behaviour though.
>
> --
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
> http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
>
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug