At least with this you wouldnt get all those crappy chain letters and stuff! although I am very much against the idea.

i thoght the idea was that if the reciver thought the mail was unsoliceted the reciver could somehow cause a charge to the sender of like 1p. then spammers get charged lots and lots of 1p's and the rest of us pay diddley squat. :D

They basis of the idea is not so much to make money, but to put the spammers out of business. One of the proposals I heard has that the first 1000 emails a month would be free, then after that would cost anywhere from one tenth of a cent to a penny an email after that. This would of course have to adopted worldwide for it to have the desired effect. The logic is that since spammers send out millions of emails at a time several times a day this would make spamming uneconomically, while still allowing email to be used by the general public with virtually free.

Rokenn, if that is the case then I am all for it. Otherwise, let it go Billy Boy! You're telling me that there isn't other ways out there to take care of this issue?

Yeh I like the idea of the 1st 1000 being free (20 would probably be enough for me) that is a really good idea to stop spam!

I think that the government should now declare a "WAR ON SPAM!" (Three cheers for yet <u>another</u> war on a noun) We can make anti-spam task forces, who hunt down dangerous spammers with battering rams and brute force, eliminating extraneous emails in the name of justice! We must liberate the electronic mailboxes of the world! The department of homeland inbox cleanliness could have color coded alerts for heavy spamming, like fuschia, mauve, and desert indigo pumkin. Yes! WE WILL STRIKE BACK AT THE FORCES OF DARKNESS!! LET THE PARANOIA BEGIN!!!!

... is that extreme or is it just me?

... is that extreme or is it just me? </font>[/QUOTE]*sigh* It's just a bit of irony. All I wanted to do was make people laugh *sob* I'M A FAILURE!!!! [img]graemlins/crying.gif[/img]

Hey, I was just starting with computers right around when the Secret Service declared war on hackers. Busting into peoples' houses, holding families at gunpoint, taking the 16 year old's computer and never returning it (or returning it damaged and/or destroyed). I remember the reports. They even stormed Steve Jackson Games over one of the GURPS settings (believe the Cyberpunk one), stating that it was a handbook for hackers. I was a criminal justice major at the time, and I did a lot of computer crime research at the time. Nothing all that funny about what you are suggesting, ryaldin. At the time, the U.S. government had no idea how to handle computer crime, so they treated it like any other crime (storm in with the automatic weapons). They may be more sophisticated about computer crime now, but if it becomes a big political issue, there's nothing that brings more attention than busting out the automatic weapons again and hitting a "spammer hideout" (like it's some kind of major drug warehouse or something).

In short, I take what you had to say for the humor it was intended, but the U.S. Government has a nasty tendency for "overreacting" to issues they do not fully understand. Usually ends up like the War on Drugs did (nothing really done about the issue).

Uhh...I know. That was pretty much the whole point. Notice the reference in my original post about the infamous war on nouns (drugs, spam, terror). It was intended to show how the powers-that-be tend to declare war on problems, instead of trying to understand what causes the problems.