I didn't talk about spam

Everybody wants rid of spam. I’m just saying we should get rid of it by other means than abandoning the systems that make the internet great. Some people act as though fighting spam is so important it trumps all other considerations. It’s important, but nothing is at that level. Abuse will occur, and techniques to stop abuse should be found that are consistent with the values we want to preserve. “The bad guys are abusing our free society, so let’s get rid of the freedoms” is not an argument likely to work on me.

Certifying mail (as opposed to “CertifiedMail(TM)”) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Standards for signing mail and issuing certificates are well established. They don’t involve per-email costs. I would recommend to Goodmail that it move in this direction, and compete against all comers in this space.

MCI mail and other pay-to-send e-mail systems died for a reason. Will spam send us scurrying back to what we rightfully put in the past?

And while the e-mail tax metaphor may not be so accurate, would you prefer the protection racket metaphor instead? As you say above, people are paying to avoid being collateral damage.

Reply

Please enter Brad's last name above. Case doesn't matter
Please make up a name if you do not wish to give your real one.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options