On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 17:29 +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 01.12.2010 at 16:13:06 +0000, Martin Gregorie <mar...@gregorie.org> > wrote: > ..... > > > IMO the best solution would have been a charge per e-mail provided it > > was universally enforced. A small charge, e.g. $0.001 to $0.01 per > > addressee per message would be almost unnoticable to a normal user or > > business while still being enough to discourage volume spammers by > > wiping out their profits. Another benefit would be that the bill > > received by a bot-infected user would serve as a powerful wake-up call > > to get disinfected. > > This is imho a very bad idea, as it would destroy much of the freedom > of the Internet in one go, since it would then be impossible to send > anonymous emails. > How, exactly do you work that out? Send through your ISP, ISP knows who you are anyway and collects.
Send through, say, TOR and either you use a wrapper (your ISP collects that and TOR strips the wrapper and sends the actual message, or you use a browser to connect to Tor and they collect. Either way, since I believe a mail can't be tracked through Tor, the result is anonymity. Besides, I seem to remember hearing that IPV6 is never anonymous and we're all going to be on that as soon as IPV4 address space is exhausted, and there are only two /8 chunks left unassigned. OT comment 1: if IPV6 is indeed never anonymous, where does *that* leave spammers and botnets. OT comment 2: another major source of spam is web forums, yet I seldom hear anything about controlling those sources. Martin
