Page 1 of 3 123 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 54

  1. Post
    #1

    How wonderful a world it would be if you had to pay 1c for every email you sent

    Casting call for GP members in positions of global IT political power.

    Picture this:

    A body that acts as a bank for mail servers, said mail server must put a balance of credit in, and every message that they send automatically credits the receiving mail server a cent.

    The receiving mail server doesn't complete the transaction until the body confirms the funds.

    So if you start your own mail server, you basically must register with this body (or bodies) if you want people to start receiving your mail.

    I'll send, what, three emails a day? Wouldn't bother me if my mail provider passed those costs on to me. And a large company like eBay will be getting far more than that in return for every message sent.

    Spam, gone. And companies like Google would jump on stuff like that as it's basically free money.

    Would eliminate spam and be funded by large web companies first (eg TradeMe paying for every message out, or removing all the garbage they send), then the average Joe second (who sends 6c of emails a day).

    Internal mail would be unaffected.

    Body (or bodies) could skim 10%. And spammers who send 100,000 emails in a day just couldn't anymore.

    If a billion emails are sent per day (or one for every eighth person and none from companies) then that's $1,000,000 per day to fund said bodies. And $9,000,000 to pay for receiving mail servers. Although I imagine far more than a billion emails are sent per day.

    Someone make it happen, I'm too much of a pleb.

  2. Post
    #2
    ^ Liquid Ace should be able to sort that out.

  3. Post
    #3
    If you PM Mutton that would be a good place to start.

  4. Post
    #4
    why would anyone want to use this system where not only you have to pay extra but you have to jump through hoops of regulation? it's simultaneously a big telco's wet dream and also goes against everything the internet stands for.

    do you work for the FCC by any chance

  5. Post
    #5
    Why did you PM me? ffs.

  6. Post
    #6
    Occasionally I hit view on what sorceror (long blocked) has to say and every time it really hits home how worthless his posts are.

    Not once have I thought, "That's actually a good reply"

    It would actually be more worthwhile if he just copy pasted "PM Mutton"

  7. Post
    #7
    You're missing out, sorceror is a quality poster.

  8. Post
    #8
    Whatsapp etc would become a lot more popular.

  9. Post
    #9
    Mutton wrote:
    You're missing out, sorceror is a quality poster.
    I'll at least give him the fact that he's consistently awful but this is the only good sorcerer poster (and even then it's pretty shit, it is, however, spelled correctly).

    Name:  sorcerer-movie-poster-47x63-in-french-r2015-william-friedkin-roy-sheider.jpg
Views: 205
Size:  720.4 KB

  10. Post
    #10
    FCC confirmed.

  11. Post
    #11
    teelo7 wrote:
    Whatsapp etc would become a lot more popular.
    Good, I don't use it. You guys can have the spam.

    If I had to put a buck in my account per month (100 emails, or 3.3 per day) and received a guarantee of no spam then it would be worth it. The legal requirement to have an unsubscribe button would no longer be necessary, and websites would stop automatically ticking seven thousand boxes of stuff to email you. And when you unsubscribe it only unsubscribes one of those seven thousand.

    I can see he has replied but I'm not going to bother viewing it, the first post already established that he has difficulty with the concept.

  12. Post
    #12
    Mutton wrote:
    You're missing out, sorceror is a quality poster.
    And he's abso****inglutely right

  13. Post
    #13
    St4lk3r wrote:
    And he's abso****inglutely right
    Why? Telcos wouldn't receive the money unless they themselves are running the mail servers, but I imagine overnight the number of emails sent would drop massively making it just covering its own cost. The biggest beneficiaries monetarily would be places like Google, and Microsoft, but Nigerian princes would stop emailing my grandmother. So the biggest losers (of the current system) would also stop losing.

    I see it equivalent to paying for a domain, it's dished out to a bunch of bodies who control it, but the running cost of the money goes to the TLD owner (like InternetNZ) whose goal it is to ensure a fair internet, and the company receiving the email (motivating them to continue to supply free email services).

    Again, it would cost you like a buck a month maximum. Companies, the ones making money from sending emails, suddenly start having to pay out, making them hesitant to send out ads.

    In a short time, tutorials would pop up all over the place on how to set up your own mail server. Decentralising it from the big providers.

  14. Post
    #14
    How wonderful a world would it be if I invented a device that could rapidly compress ****tons of oxygen into a tiny storage space so I could take a monopoly on breathable air then rent it out for people to breathe at 1 cent per breath?

    When people storm my base to take back their air supplies by force I'd then just reveal that the princesstanks are in another castle!

  15. Post
    #15
    suntoucher wrote:
    Why? Telcos wouldn't receive the money unless they themselves are running the mail servers, but I imagine overnight the number of emails sent would drop massively making it just covering its own cost. The biggest beneficiaries monetarily would be places like Google, and Microsoft, but Nigerian princes would stop emailing my grandmother. So the biggest losers (of the current system) would also stop losing.

    I see it equivalent to paying for a domain, it's dished out to a bunch of bodies who control it, but the running cost of the money goes to the TLD owner (like InternetNZ) whose goal it is to ensure a fair internet, and the company receiving the email (motivating them to continue to supply free email services).

    Again, it would cost you like a buck a month maximum. Companies, the ones making money from sending emails, suddenly start having to pay out, making them hesitant to send out ads.

    In a short time, tutorials would pop up all over the place on how to set up your own mail server.
    You're only addressing a part of sorcerers post

    And you're basing your idea on the emails You are seeing and ignoring a bunch that maybe you're not seeing personally but still wouldn't fit into your pigeonholed idea

    Don't get me wrong it's a problem that needs addressing and discussion of it is good but there is no way in **** you could implement a regulatory ticket clipper on something of that scale and have any form of accountability in it (which would be vital for chain of command/delivery), so whilst it's good to discuss it and spit ball ideas I don't think this is the answet

  16. Post
    #16
    Hell, with the tutorials they'll probably come with a whitelist system that bypasses the middleman. So you whitelist servers of your friends and family. Making the cost zero with them but still applying a barrier to strangers, companies and spammers.

  17. Smile
    #17
    Is your main goal trying to stop spam?

    Would have thought places like google etc would know everyone hates it and would come up with a better solution.

  18. Post
    #18
    St4lk3r wrote:
    You're only addressing a part of sorcerers post

    And you're basing your idea on the emails You are seeing and ignoring a bunch that maybe you're not seeing personally but still wouldn't fit into your pigeonholed idea
    For example?

    St4lk3r wrote:
    Don't get me wrong it's a problem that needs addressing and discussion of it is good but there is no way in **** you could implement a regulatory ticket clipper on something of that scale and have any form of accountability in it (which would be vital for chain of command/delivery), so whilst it's good to discuss it and spit ball ideas I don't think this is the answet
    What sort of accountability are we talking about? They're not filtering the messages themselves, they're purely an automated transfer of funds. The receiving mail server would only really need to check occasionally unless they receive a message from a sender they haven't already checked. In the event of a lack of prepaid funds you'd just get a rejection message same as you get when a message has failed.

    Server Sends to Receiver, Receiver Checks Funds against Body, Receiver accepts and confirms receipt, cent gets transferred.

    Places like Google would whitelist major senders, like Microsoft. So say it checks every thousand emails with body. But if they get one from, say, my mail server, they'll verify every one.

  19. Post
    #19
    Magic Robertson wrote:
    Is your main goal trying to stop spam?

    Would have thought places like google etc would know everyone hates it and would come up with a better solution.
    They have spam filters, but there's always new stuff breaking through (work gets emails from "Sarah from Glen Eden" wanting to confirm this is my email address, and variations regularly.

    But also like my example earlier, "When you unsubscribe from a supplier, they untick one of seven thousand options and still send you the other 6999".

    "Oh, you're not interested in receiving emails specifically about the 1080 Ti? That's cool, we'll stop sending you emails specifically about that graphics card"

    "No, I don't want to receive any emails"

    "Sorry, that's not an option"

    Or when you signed up to a website seven years ago, and suddenly they read an article on how important regular emails are and they require you to login to unsubscribe (usually happens around New Years).

  20. Post
    #20
    suntoucher wrote:
    For example?



    What sort of accountability are we talking about? They're not filtering the messages themselves, they're purely an automated transfer of funds. The receiving mail server would only really need to check occasionally unless they receive a message from a sender they haven't already checked. In the event of a lack of prepaid funds you'd just get a rejection message same as you get when a message has failed.

    Server Sends to Receiver, Receiver Checks Funds against Body, Receiver accepts and confirms receipt, cent gets transferred.

    Places like Google would whitelist major senders, like Microsoft. So say it checks every thousand emails with body.
    I'm not sure I can be bothered mashing this out on tapatalk so apologies if it seems brief but other than suggesting you should definitely think about this more.

    Example I can think of off the top of my head being how government agency emails would work/would be paid for and emails that receivers don't actually want but Have to receive they now have another blame channel for "oh it never arrived"

    And as far as accountability, you say they're not filtering but can you prove it? Can you prove they're not skimming or reading contents? Who holds them accountable if they're found to be a bit dodgy, which countries laws do they follow? Do new laws need to be written to accommodate the idea?

    Anyways I'm not replying to shit in your weetbix I think discussing ideas to solve the problem is good, I just don't think this one is a singular solution

  21. Post
    #21
    St4lk3r wrote:
    I'm not sure I can be bothered mashing this out on tapatalk so apologies if it seems brief but other than suggesting you should definitely think about this more.

    Example I can think of off the top of my head being how government agency emails would work/would be paid for and emails that receivers don't actually want but Have to receive they now have another blame channel for "oh it never arrived"
    Legitimate, but theoretically their own mail servers will receive the rejection, same as they do now when the email address doesn't exist.

    St4lk3r wrote:
    And as far as accountability, you say they're not filtering but can you prove it? Can you prove they're not skimming or reading contents? Who holds them accountable if they're found to be a bit dodgy, which countries laws do they follow? Do new laws need to be written to accommodate the idea?
    Because the sender isn't sending the email to the third party, it's sending it to the receiver who only accepts it after verifying a balance with the third party. See my response above, it's just a scenario where they say, "This server has sent me an email, can they pay me? They can? Sweet"

    With that in mind, I can legitimately see abuse. "This sender has sent me 50 emails, they can pay me? Sweet" albeit they haven't actually been sent any emails. Perhaps a token to the third party from the sender saying, "I'm sending out ten emails" and the receiver saying, "I'm receiving ten emails"

    The third party just controls the funds and returns "Funds or no funds" whether to the receiver, the sender or both (likely both after considering the above)

  22. Post
    #22
    Right the last part there clarifies that a bit, doesn't answer about regulations of said 3rd party but its a bit clearer. I still don't believe it to be the one solution.

    You're essentially asking people to pay for something they've effectively had for free for decades and considering the point of the Internet is to give everyone a soapbox for free it'd be a bloody hard push to get them to start paying for it now

  23. Post
    #23
    2 things

    Remember that ****ing annoying thing Roumelio used to do with editing posts while someone was replying to him, stop bloody doing it, I'll read your posts don't worry you don't have to rush it out while you have my attention

    Secondly, the whole gateway of pay/can they pay integration adds delay to the process, that delay will cause issues, perhaps not to everyone but it will cause issues

  24. Post
    #24
    St4lk3r wrote:
    Right the last part there clarifies that a bit, doesn't answer about regulations of said 3rd party but its a bit clearer. I still don't believe it to be the one solution.

    You're essentially asking people to pay for something they've effectively had for free for decades and considering the point of the Internet is to give everyone a soapbox for free it'd be a bloody hard push to get them to start paying for it now
    Yep, true.

    But the GDPR passed, the NZ GST law passed, NZ wants to tax revenue on web MNCs. Basically if a major political body (hence the casting call at the very beginning) said "This is now what's happening" like the UN, US or EU then basically everyone would just suck it up and deal with it.

    The average person doesn't send that many emails personally. The bulk is businesses and spammers. The GST changes would cost more to the average person on GP than the email law. And lets say I send 50 emails a day at work, that's 50c for the $300 they've spent on my hourly wage in that same day. Minus all of the internal ones.

  25. Post
    #25
    St4lk3r wrote:
    2 things

    Remember that ****ing annoying thing Roumelio used to do with editing posts while someone was replying to him, stop bloody doing it, I'll read your posts don't worry you don't have to rush it out while you have my attention

    Secondly, the whole gateway of pay/can they pay integration adds delay to the process, that delay will cause issues, perhaps not to everyone but it will cause issues
    Not really, although admittedly I type as I think, then I rethink, I don't consider then post. And I try not to double post.

    It does, but if daily emails drop from 10 billion to 3 billion (or more likely, 30 billion to 10 billion) then that should actually have a net gain on bandwidth (and a net gain on overall latency).