A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Two tier internet - and idea



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 15th 06, 12:58 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
SecretSquiddle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Two tier internet - and idea

I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
thousands of bounced messages per day.

This would mean the home user wouldn't have to pay, and people could hurt
the spammers directly, but using filtering software that would deliberately
bounce messages back as invalid.

I don't want to see a system where the average home user has to pay for each
message they send - that would kill the idea of email for me.

I can see that spammers would only be able to send spam, via comprimised
machines, but this is preventable - and would make their lives very
difficult, and focus every internet user to the importance of cleaning up
their act.

This system would also mean that those careless enough to allow their
machines to be infected with mass mailer Trojans, will have to pay until
they get it sorted, creating a cleaner internet for the majority.

I think this is a better idea then what AOL & Yahoo! are proposing, as I
don't want any unsolicited mail - certified or not, just like I don't want
cold callers, or junk mail through my door.

Thoughts?

**SS**

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02...charge_emails/


  #2  
Old February 15th 06, 01:35 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
andrew.burchill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Two tier internet - and idea

SecretSquiddle wrote:
I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
thousands of bounced messages per day.


who will force all ISP's to do this ?

--
Eps
  #3  
Old February 15th 06, 03:13 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Eddy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Two tier internet - and idea

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:58:36 -0000 SecretSquiddle
wrote:

I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers
should charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one
24 period. As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must
get tens of thousands of bounced messages per day.

This would mean the home user wouldn't have to pay, and people could hurt
the spammers directly, but using filtering software that would
deliberately bounce messages back as invalid.
....


But in most spam headers the 'From' addresses (etc) are forged, so the
bounced mail is just sent to some poor unfortunate individual whose address
happens to have been used in the spam. Wait until YOUR email address gets
used by a spammer and you get thousands of bounce messages or irate replies,
and you might change you mind about YOU being charged for them... !

  #4  
Old February 15th 06, 04:40 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Spin Dryer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Two tier internet - and idea

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:58:36 -0000, [SecretSquiddle] said :-

I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
thousands of bounced messages per day.




Thoughts?


Yes, you are mistaken.

Spammers rarely use their own return email address, possibly only
419'ers. Hence, they will never see a bounce message, just those poor
unfortunates whose email addresses has been forged.
  #5  
Old February 15th 06, 05:23 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Alan J. Flavell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default Two tier internet - and idea

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, andrew.burchill revealed to all and sundry that:

SecretSquiddle wrote:
I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email
providers should charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced
messages in one 24 period. As spammers chance that email addresses
are active, they must get tens of thousands of bounced messages
per day.


It seems the hon Usenaut has a hopelessly twisted mental model of how
email operates. Nowadays, anyone who tries to reject spam by
routinely composing bounces is going to be - rightly - rapidly
blacklisted for what is popularly known as "backscatter" (I actually
preferred the earlier term "collateral spam"). The only viable policy
for keeping spam out is rejection at SMTP time (SMTP 5xx status).

Conversely, any ISP who allows their own customers to spam while doing
nothing more than charging them for the privilege, will find
themselves blacklisted in SPEWS, and widely shunned by decent folk.
Far from charging their customers a premium rate to continue spamming
(known in the trade as "pink contracts"), any decent ISP will be
terminating them with prejudice, for violation of terms of service.

who will force all ISP's to do this ?


I don't think the hon. Usenaut really knows who he's proposing to
penalise. I'd recommend him learning more about the topic before
coming up with any more proposals.

best
  #6  
Old February 15th 06, 05:37 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Mike Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Two tier internet - and idea

Spin Dryer wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:58:36 -0000, [SecretSquiddle] said :-

I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
thousands of bounced messages per day.




Thoughts?


Yes, you are mistaken.

Spammers rarely use their own return email address, possibly only
419'ers. Hence, they will never see a bounce message, just those poor
unfortunates whose email addresses has been forged.


I /think/ the OP is assuming that spambots will send their junk via the
hapless owner's ISP - at which point that ISP would see lots of SMTP
rejections and presumably trace them to the compromised machine, and
charge the owner. But since spambots send mail out directly, that won't
happen unless ISPs start to trap port 25 outbound requests - and whether
/that's/ a good thing overall probably depends on who you ask.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)
  #7  
Old February 15th 06, 10:06 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 529
Default Two tier internet - and idea


On 15-Feb-2006, "Joker7" wrote:

: As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
: thousands of bounced messages per day.


Problem is the spammers forge the headers. Tracing the actual sender
is not a trivial task.
The problem of spam and forged headers was not thought of when
the internet and mail exchange protocols were created as RFC's.
What is needed is an add on, where the receiving mail server queries
the (alleged) sending server "did you send message ID nnnnn, and
do you accept mail for the sender?"
which would only take a few extra bytes of network traffic,
comparable to a ping or time server request.
If the answer is "no", an undeliverable response is sent back
to the alleged sender, which will almost certainly go into a
black hole if it is a forged senders address, and the message
trashed.
Much less overheads than all the bounced junk messages,
and making it impossible to send messages from forged
from addresses.
Essentially we need an "authenticate the sender" add on.
Then the spammers, and their ISP's, would really get bogged
down with bounced junk, and also be likely to find themselves
on the receiving end of lawsuits for the cost of processing
and rejecting the junk. Intrusion of privacy etc.
  #8  
Old February 15th 06, 10:38 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Colin Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 850
Default Two tier internet - and idea

What is needed is an add on, where the receiving mail server queries
the (alleged) sending server "did you send message ID nnnnn, and
do you accept mail for the sender?"


How do you get around the issue of individual hijacked machines being
used for this purpose though ?

It wouldn`t be long before trojans / botnets were set up to respond as
though they were legit servers, or they used the hijacked machines'
proper ISP mail settings by "retrieving" the proper account details.
  #9  
Old February 15th 06, 10:49 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Clint Sharp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default Two tier internet - and idea

In message , SecretSquiddle
writes
I think instead of creating a two tier internet, ISP/email providers should
charge a surcharge for more then, say 50 bounced messages in one 24 period.
As spammers chance that email addresses are active, they must get tens of
thousands of bounced messages per day.
Thoughts?

Yeah, nice idea in theory but it assumes that no spammer ever forged an
email address or ever used a hijacked PC to post their garbage. FWIW, I
think that creating a 2 tier system that removes AOL users from the
Internet in general has far too many plus sides to argue against.

**SS**

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02...charge_emails/



--
Clint Sharp
  #10  
Old February 16th 06, 12:13 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
SecretSquiddle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Two tier internet - and idea


"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
What is needed is an add on, where the receiving mail server queries
the (alleged) sending server "did you send message ID nnnnn, and
do you accept mail for the sender?"


How do you get around the issue of individual hijacked machines being
used for this purpose though ?

It wouldn`t be long before trojans / botnets were set up to respond as
though they were legit servers, or they used the hijacked machines'
proper ISP mail settings by "retrieving" the proper account details.


OK, I hear what everyone has said, and suspected that there would be a fly
(or six) in the ointment. It was just a thought.

I'm now enlightened. :-)

There must be a better solution then the certified email, and charges. I
can't see how certifying the emails from businesses is going to help the
people receiving these messages, if they still don't want to receive such
email. It's still spam, if it's unwanted.

**SS**


 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
idea for high speed low cost dsl 7 uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 1 February 2nd 05 02:29 AM
Internet anking and internet security Furby uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 12 January 31st 05 08:08 AM
internet Angus C uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 November 30th 04 06:17 PM
BT to be broken up? ( agood idea ) six-toes uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 13 May 3rd 04 12:22 AM
I'm changing from NTL to BT - good idea? belfast biker uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 August 24th 03 11:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.