Earthlink Has Blocked Your Mail. No spam, okay. But also mail blocked that you want.

Earthlink Spam Blocker ^ | February 12, 2004 | Earthlink

[BJungNan]

That is the same system I use with hotmail. The good mail you find in the junk mail is exactly what I am talking about. With many email users, the junk mail is set for automatic delete. That may be the point: use the filter but don't set for automatic delete. You still have to look to see what is there.

[js1138]

One more thing. If I buy something online, I'm expecting an email, so I check the junk folder carefully. Once I have accepted an email from an online store, their email is on the whitelist until I remove it.

But it's also possible to accept unsolicited email. It's just that hotmail removes the extra steps of having to manually delete junk. It's really no more trouble than scanning the inbox and deleting stuff. Less actually.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Who is going to go to all that trouble? Some maybe, but you can bet many will not.

I use earthlink and I can tell you I would get 100 spam e-mails a day if it werent for this service. I love it and if anyone wants to sent e-mail to me they can go through the process... Spammers won't waste time with the rules enforced by a spam blocker. But your freinds will.

[Reelect President Dubya]

It is now time to start charging for email - so many free and then after that a per-email charge.

If it's such a good idea, you could start doing that voluntarily yourself.

Keep track of how many emails you send each month, and send your ISP a check for your excess usage.

[js1138]

I already pay for email. It's called paying the ISP for my connection and email account. They in turn pay for their connections. Just like my telephone land line. I am aware that some areas have usage limits for local calls, but I would not voluntarily live in those areas.

[BJungNan]

Keep track of how many emails you send each month, and send your ISP a check for your excess usage.

The operative words are, "you can send only so many for free." Let's put the number at 10,000. You can send 10,000 for free each month.

If that were the limit, there would be no spam problem and it would not cost you or me any more than we are paying now - maybe even less than we are paying now to deal with this problem in direct costs passed on by the ISP and our wasted time dealing with spam.

[armymarinemom]

I've had to deal with people having mail bounced from an email list that they have requested. After a few activation request they are removed. We don't go through hoops trying to get in touch with someone who has mail coming back.

[Critter]

I think that the solution to spam is a very simple one. The trouble is, I don't have the know how to impliment it. I would like to get rich off of my idea, so if anyone here is a technology wiz, and would like to hear my idea, and maybe partner up in its development, private mail me. :)

[rit]

The problem with Email is that it is unauthenticated. That is to say, the technology used does not have a way to verify who sent the email in the first place. Hence, whitelist and blacklist do not work.

The technology can be changed, but that would break existing systems. The cost of implementing the change could also be significant. Further, all emerging countries would also have to change and that adds more complexity, and cost.

The only solution is to integrate the new protocol within the existing technology. The idea is that inbound mail can be classified as bulk (unauthenticated), and certified (authenticated). Of course, to do this, requires the sender and receiver to sign up for the service and there is a cost associated with that.

[rit]

One more thing. If I buy something online, I'm expecting an email, so I check the junk folder carefully. Once I have accepted an email from an online store, their email is on the whitelist until I remove it.

Whitelist and blacklist are insufficient. The SMTP and POP3 protocols do not have means to verify who sent the email in the first place (also known as spoofing the email headers). The can-spam act makes it illegal to spoof the header, but I doubt that spammers in romania really care. Also, trying to verify who sent the spam in the first place is costly in time and expertise.

[js1138]

Spoofing the return address should be illegal. Folks wo leave their email servers open to the public for forwarding should be removed from the internet.

I suppose in the long run, email will have to be upgraded to require authentication.

[thulldud]

The SMTP and POP3 protocols do not have means to verify who sent the email in the first place

But it's being added. Get your ISP to check out SPF.