Two tier internet - and idea

I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
thousands of bounced messages per day.

This would mean the home user wouldn't have to pay, and people could hurt
the spammers directly, but using filtering software that would deliberately
bounce messages back as invalid.

I don't want to see a system where the average home user has to pay for each
message they send - that would kill the idea of email for me.

I can see that spammers would only be able to send spam, via comprimised
machines, but this is preventable - and would make their lives very
difficult, and focus every internet user to the importance of cleaning up
their act.

This system would also mean that those careless enough to allow their
machines to be infected with mass mailer Trojans, will have to pay until
they get it sorted, creating a cleaner internet for the majority.

I think this is a better idea then what AOL & Yahoo! are proposing, as I
don't want any unsolicited mail - certified or not, just like I don't want
cold callers, or junk mail through my door.

Thoughts?

**SS**

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02...charge_emails/

SecretSquiddle wrote:
> I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
> charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
> As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
> thousands of bounced messages per day.

who will force all ISP's to do this ?

--
Eps

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:58:36 -0000 SecretSquiddle
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers
> should charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one
> 24 period. As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must
> get tens of thousands of bounced messages per day.
>
> This would mean the home user wouldn't have to pay, and people could hurt
> the spammers directly, but using filtering software that would
> deliberately bounce messages back as invalid.
>....

But in most spam headers the 'From' addresses (etc) are forged, so the
bounced mail is just sent to some poor unfortunate individual whose address
happens to have been used in the spam. Wait until YOUR email address gets
used by a spammer and you get thousands of bounce messages or irate replies,
and you might change you mind about YOU being charged for them... !

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:58:36 -0000, [SecretSquiddle] said :-

>I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
>charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
>As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
>thousands of bounced messages per day.
>



>Thoughts?
>

Yes, you are mistaken.

Spammers rarely use their own return email address, possibly only
419'ers. Hence, they will never see a bounce message, just those poor
unfortunates whose email addresses has been forged.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, andrew.burchill revealed to all and sundry that:

> SecretSquiddle wrote:
> > I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email
> > providers should charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced
> > messages in one 24 period. As spammers chance that email addresses
> > are active, they must get tens of thousands of bounced messages
> > per day.

It seems the hon Usenaut has a hopelessly twisted mental model of how
email operates. Nowadays, anyone who tries to reject spam by
routinely composing bounces is going to be - rightly - rapidly
blacklisted for what is popularly known as "backscatter" (I actually
preferred the earlier term "collateral spam"). The only viable policy
for keeping spam out is rejection at SMTP time (SMTP 5xx status).

Conversely, any ISP who allows their own customers to spam while doing
nothing more than charging them for the privilege, will find
themselves blacklisted in SPEWS, and widely shunned by decent folk.
Far from charging their customers a premium rate to continue spamming
(known in the trade as "pink contracts"), any decent ISP will be
terminating them with prejudice, for violation of terms of service.

> who will force all ISP's to do this ?

I don't think the hon. Usenaut really knows who he's proposing to
penalise. I'd recommend him learning more about the topic before
coming up with any more proposals.

best

Spin Dryer wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:58:36 -0000, [SecretSquiddle] said :-
>
>> I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
>> charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
>> As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
>> thousands of bounced messages per day.
>>
>
>
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Yes, you are mistaken.
>
> Spammers rarely use their own return email address, possibly only
> 419'ers. Hence, they will never see a bounce message, just those poor
> unfortunates whose email addresses has been forged.

I /think/ the OP is assuming that spambots will send their junk via the
hapless owner's ISP - at which point that ISP would see lots of SMTP
rejections and presumably trace them to the compromised machine, and
charge the owner. But since spambots send mail out directly, that won't
happen unless ISPs start to trap port 25 outbound requests - and whether
/that's/ a good thing overall probably depends on who you ask.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

"SecretSquiddle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:43f32574$0$23296$(E-Mail Removed)...
:I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
: charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24
period.
: As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
: thousands of bounced messages per day.
:
: This would mean the home user wouldn't have to pay, and people could hurt
: the spammers directly, but using filtering software that would
deliberately
: bounce messages back as invalid.
:
: I don't want to see a system where the average home user has to pay for
each
: message they send - that would kill the idea of email for me.
:
: I can see that spammers would only be able to send spam, via comprimised
: machines, but this is preventable - and would make their lives very
: difficult, and focus every internet user to the importance of cleaning up
: their act.
:
: This system would also mean that those careless enough to allow their
: machines to be infected with mass mailer Trojans, will have to pay until
: they get it sorted, creating a cleaner internet for the majority.
:
: I think this is a better idea then what AOL & Yahoo! are proposing, as I
: don't want any unsolicited mail - certified or not, just like I don't want
: cold callers, or junk mail through my door.
:
: Thoughts?
:
: **SS**
:
: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02...charge_emails/
:
:
I can see user of AOL & Yahoo not getting any mail soon, I already have a
problem send to AOL from my own server.All I can see is away for the money
grabber to grab more of our money!

Chris

--
Cheap As Chips Broadband http://yeah.kick-butt.co.uk

On 15-Feb-2006, "Joker7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> : As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
> : thousands of bounced messages per day.

Problem is the spammers forge the headers. Tracing the actual sender
is not a trivial task.
The problem of spam and forged headers was not thought of when
the internet and mail exchange protocols were created as RFC's.
What is needed is an add on, where the receiving mail server queries
the (alleged) sending server "did you send message ID nnnnn, and
do you accept mail for the sender?"
which would only take a few extra bytes of network traffic,
comparable to a ping or time server request.
If the answer is "no", an undeliverable response is sent back
to the alleged sender, which will almost certainly go into a
black hole if it is a forged senders address, and the message
trashed.
Much less overheads than all the bounced junk messages,
and making it impossible to send messages from forged
from addresses.
Essentially we need an "authenticate the sender" add on.
Then the spammers, and their ISP's, would really get bogged
down with bounced junk, and also be likely to find themselves
on the receiving end of lawsuits for the cost of processing
and rejecting the junk. Intrusion of privacy etc.

> What is needed is an add on, where the receiving mail server queries
> the (alleged) sending server "did you send message ID nnnnn, and
> do you accept mail for the sender?"

How do you get around the issue of individual hijacked machines being
used for this purpose though ?

It wouldn`t be long before trojans / botnets were set up to respond as
though they were legit servers, or they used the hijacked machines'
proper ISP mail settings by "retrieving" the proper account details.

In message <43f32574$0$23296$(E-Mail Removed)>, SecretSquiddle
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
>charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
>As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
>thousands of bounced messages per day.
>Thoughts?
Yeah, nice idea in theory but it assumes that no spammer ever forged an
email address or ever used a hijacked PC to post their garbage. FWIW, I
think that creating a 2 tier system that removes AOL users from the
Internet in general has far too many plus sides to argue against.
>
>**SS**
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02...charge_emails/
>
>

--
Clint Sharp