Slashdot Mirror
Gates on Spam
pvt_medic writes "Microsoft is proposing a new system that would require people to pay to send e-mails. Postage would be in the form of allowing others to use your computer to make calculations, similar to the SETi@home project. There are other systems being suggested that would include monetary stamps and people could decide on accepting an e-mail based off the value of the stamp. (story has great picture of Bill Gates as well)" Gates' proposed system will be Microsoft patent-encumbered, unsurprisingly.
This has been discussed before, and i replied to this before. Allow others to make calculations on your computer, eh? Would those calculations happen to be the spam solution MS Research came up with? Why don't they stick to that solution?! Strap it to SpamAssassin like these guys do but replacing the C/R, it's gold!
Similar to Seti@Home, sure... Except you pay Microsoft to have the calculations considered.
Also, what is Gates holding in that picture? A joint? Is that was he's smoking thinking people will accept this idea as part of their daily email lives so that microsoft can make even more barrels of cash?
story has great picture of Bill Gates as well
.02,
Is he praising Mel Gibson for Passion of Christ? Is he smoking one incredibly fat doober that would make even Tommy Chong jealous? Is he trying to convince the Pope that Longhorn isn't named after a pornstar? Or is he really just THAT great?
You decide.
Seriously:
Instead of paying a penny, the sender would "buy" postage by devoting maybe 10 seconds of computing time to solving a math puzzle. The exercise would merely serve as proof of the sender's good faith.
And how the fuck would this make a difference? So what? The computer that is supposed to do the work is going to be like Johnny Badass in 2nd grade math class... They are not going to do their homework and just try to bluff it through class. If they do end up having to hand it in to be graded they are just going to get around it some other way. We will end up blocking just as many hosts as before.
Gates' proposed system will be Microsoft patent-encumbered, unsurprisingly.
No kidding. Gates came up w/it why would you be surprised he wouldn't want to protect his idea? No conspiracy here... Was the comment necessary?
Just my worthless
According to the Info World article about Microsoft's Caller ID patents, Microsoft's license "... will encourage all parties involved to allow the Caller ID technology to develop and improve without being hindered by license restrictions or royalty schemes"; and "Microsoft wants to do more than merely give (Caller ID) away, they also want to make sure nobody else can profit from it."
:-)
Seems like a perfect application for the GPL to me.
No.
Love, Tom.
Charging for email doesn't discourage spam. It discourages mass email. But there are many legitimate uses of mass email, like discussion lists, automated order confirmation emails, etc. - and increasing the costs of sending this type of mail will hurt open-source developers and small businesses the most.
.org? Yeah, right!
It's not surprising that Microsoft doesn't see the problem with this. They can afford to buy a few more mail servers to handle all of microsoft.com's outgoing mail, and they'd love it if people had to buy more servers (each running a copy of Windows, of course) just to handle all of the added computational costs of sending mail.
In the article, "Goodmail chief executive Richard Gingras said individuals might get to send a limited number for free, while mailing lists and nonprofit organizations might get price breaks." But how do you know who's a nonprofit? Someone with a
I believe that SPF currently has the potential to put the biggest dent in spam, since it directly addresses forged email addresses without needing to replace SMTP. It's not a complete solution, but it's a lot more realistic than Microsoft's idea.
Requiring people to let the sender or some third party execute instructions on the sending machine is so fraught with problems, it's hard to know where to start. Unless this software is Free, you simply can't expect everyone to install on their systems; of course MS wants them to, but hey let's be realistic here: they won't. If it's only available in binary, it would lock out anyone using an unsupported OS (or version thereof). It'd be a new security hole in the sender's machine just begging (with a big neon sign) to be exploited, and would complicate the use of firewalls, especially those using NAT. It'd have a regressive fee structure, because those with expensive, high-powered machines could afford to "spend" more CPU cycles (heck, build a beowulf cluster of discarded 486's to buy more spamming rights), while some poor sod using a Pentium/150 can hardly afford to give up any.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Email needs to be free....
Spam as a tool works as per the previous articles. It is a pain just like anything else, but instead of making me pay money to use email, why not spend you high budgets with an educational compaign to stop people from buying spammed products? No money made means no motivation. Problem solved. We voted with our dollars on banner ads and look how that market fell out. Rinse and apply to spam.
Also, what happens when we are forced to move away from email because we invite Microsoft to take over and control it?
The only great picture of Bill Gates that I know of are ones of this incident
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
How does this help in the case of spammers creating massive networks of compromised hosts which are then used to send spam in a distributed manner? Such a "pay-with-cycles" technique is useless in this case, since you can still send a *massive* amount of spam with a few million compromised computers, even if each one can only send, say, one email per hour.
Aren't most spams sent using hijacked PCs anyway?
Why wouldn't the spammer be willing to sell cycles on the zombie PCs?
Microsoft makes peace with Spam, tells everyone to learn to live with it and love it.
First off requireing on supposedly time consuming math is absurd. First off it can't be too complex because it would encumber normal users and recievers (who have to check it I suppose) second spammers will develope a cheat sheet (and if Bill doesn't think so he should do a search on the web for "Microsoft Product Activation Code".
My system is beautiful and simple.
Everyone use an OpenPGP program (maybe gnuPG) to sign all their email. then recipients can easily check a public keyserver (probably would have to set up more, but ideally each large domain would have one so you can check 'keyserver.microsoft.com' for the key for an adress from microsoft.com) of course you wouldn't need to check a server for someone in your keyring, but I bet through this method anti-spam webs of trust would become very easy to protect.
This is currently standards complient, so it breaks nothing. And it allows people to decide their level of protection.... you want unsigned mail to get through more power to you. You want to see only verified email fro people YOU know, go for it. you want to accept from any one who has signed that you can get the identity of from a keyserver, sounds great.
Why don't people do this? it requires nothing more than minimal changes to mail readers, and mild diligence. once it became popular enough its very easy to eliminate all non-trusted mail (although st first you would have to slowoly build it up of course)
is this that bad of an idea?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The famous thing about the NP-complete problems is that they're hard to solve, but easy to check. That's presumably what's going on here. You can parcel out a rather large traveling salesman problem. But it doesn't take me 10 seconds to check it; it takes me far less than one second, even if I didn't know the answer beforehand.
I think that's kind of neat, actually.
So Johnny Badass can't bluff his way through; his work will be checked.
There are many other problems with this technique (a problem that takes 10 seconds on a 4 GHZ Pentium takes several minutes on a still-useful P133; non-upgraded computers get treated like criminals; patent terms could suddenly turn onerous) but the idea that a computer could bluff it out isn't one of them.
I own a business and we get something like a fair amount of sales leads via email.
I wonder how many people would not bother contacting us to inquire about services if they had to pay for the priviledge?
Also, I exchange A LOT of emails with existing clients...working off-site makes email the prefered mechanism of communication. I already pay for Internet Access (which currently includes access to routes between mail servers); I'd sure hate to have to pay for using a particular service on the Internet that is now free.
IMO, Spam is best fought at the source. Filters like SA are great for the user end, but the demand on the wires is still there (the recipient server has to GET the spam for it to be dropped). Go after the spammers themselves. Hard. With both barrels.
(1) Make it financially unattractive to spam. This can be either by fines or by MORE user education to NOT RESPOND to the dang things.
(2) Go after them criminally. They put an arguably unethical demand on everyone's Internet; who knows how many hardware failures are accelerated by the traffic due to spam (disks, NIC's etc). I liken spammers to someone who blows up, or at least physically blocks, a bridge on a public highway.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
I can't see how this could work. Any spam-prevention measure must also have some provision to deal with legitimate mailing lists. Some mailing lists can be quite busy and have thousands of members.
Also, Gate's method has a lot of flaws, security being only one of them. For example, how will you deal with all the various different operating systems and embedded hardware that send email? For example, my Netgear firewall box periodically sends me emails of logs or alerts.
Also, you can't easily change the way email is done because its use is so widespread.
Making it computationally based has a number of major flaws.
1. How do you deal with the wide range of computer performance? For example, my mail server is a Pentium II, which is more than adequate for my needs, or my firewall, which is a 50MHz StrongARM processor?
2. How would you allow others to use your computer to make computations? This opens up some serious security considerations, not to mention the fact that there's a wide range of processors and operating systems that would need to be supported. I won't run Seti@Home because the last time I ran it it crashed my mail server after over 200 days of uptime. I don't know what it was about Seti, but it would always immediately crash my server.
3. You would need to make everyone agree to do this. The Internet is international.
A better way would be to strongly encourage ISPs to block spammers and give them the tools to go after them. An ISP should be able to charge the hell out of a spammer on their network and encouraged to do so.
Why not give the backbones the power to cut off major spam sources and provide financial incentives to do so?
There's lots of other methods that could be used. If you make life completely miserable for spammers, they'll stop. If there's no profit, they'll stop.
If our stupid congress critters would do something right for a change, like California's anti-spam law that was blocked by the Washington idiots, then we'd have a lot more power to go after the spammers.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
No I am not going to pay to send e-mail. Sorry, but Bill's proposal is not acceptable.
It is one thing to donate idle CPU time to something charitable and worthwhile, like SETI, if you wish to do so. But to allow a private corporation to freely enjoy things that cost me considerable money for, like a full time DSL connection, and the electricity to operate a PC with a 450 watt power supply 24/7, makes no sense. To require me to submit to this just so I can send e-mail is nonsense.
Other questions come to mind. If this proposed system is burdened with Microsoft patents, then exactly how will open-source or third-pary e-mail clients and servers be licensed with the Microsoft IP. Exactly what is that going to cost?
98% of people will read this as: "So the richest man in the world wants me to pay for something I have always done for free?"
I agree, this thing is dead before it ever gets out the conceptual door. Narrow-minded people look at it and think its rational, after all they think "it won't cost me much" ... but the whole concept of paying anything for email just destroys legitimate things such as mailing lists (think about kernel mailing lists, hobbiest lists, etc). It will never work across international boundaries, and if ever implemented people will simply revert to using the older free techniques. People are always looking for free or less costly methods of communication (such as VOIP), attaching a charge onto something that is free now is just stupid.
And I shudder to think of what might happen if politicians get a hold of a concept like this - "whoa, people paying money, and we are not getting our fair share of tax?!?"
I wish people would simply drop the paying for email concept. Bulk mail (bulk advertising) is not free, yet I still get way more of it stuffed into my physical mailbox than legitimate letters. Making it cost WILL NOT make it go away.