Bill Gates proposes charging computers user for every email sent

[AgPete]

Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail
Paying for e-mail seen as anti-spam tactic
Friday, March 5, 2004 Posted: 11:25 AM EST (1625 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- If the U.S. Postal Service delivered mail for free, our mailboxes would surely runneth over with more credit-card offers, sweepstakes entries, and supermarket fliers. That's why we get so much junk e-mail: It's essentially free to send. So Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates, among others, is now suggesting that we start buying "stamps" for e-mail.

Many Internet analysts worry, though, that turning e-mail into an economic commodity would undermine its value in democratizing communication. But let's start with the math: At perhaps a penny or less per item, e-mail postage wouldn't significantly dent the pocketbooks of people who send only a few messages a day. Not so for spammers who mail millions at a time.

Though postage proposals have been in limited discussion for years -- a team at Microsoft Research has been at it since 2001 -- Gates gave the idea a lift in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Details came last week as part of Microsoft's anti-spam strategy. 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.

Time is money, and spammers would presumably have to buy many more machines to solve enough puzzles. The open-source software Hashcash, available since about 1997, takes a similar approach and has been incorporated into other spam-fighting tools including Camram and Spam Assassin.

Meanwhile, Goodmail Systems Inc. has been in touch with Yahoo! Inc. and other e-mail providers about using cash. Goodmail envisions charging bulk mailers a penny a message to bypass spam filters and avoid being incorrectly tossed as junk. That all sounds good for curbing spam, but what if it kills the e-mail you want as well?

Consider how simple and inexpensive it is today to e-mail a friend, relative, or even a city-hall bureaucrat. It's nice not to have to calculate whether greeting grandma is worth a cent. And what of the communities now tied together through e-mail -- hundreds of cancer survivors sharing tips on coping; dozens of parents coordinating soccer schedules? Those pennies add up.

"It detracts from your ability to speak and to state your opinions to large groups of people," said David Farber, a veteran technologist who runs a mailing list with more than 20,000 subscribers. "It changes the whole complexion of the net."

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 at what threshold would e-mail cease to be free? At what point might a mailing list be big or commercial enough to pay full rates? Goodmail has no price list yet, so Gingras couldn't say. Vint Cerf, one of the Internet's founding fathers, said spammers are bound to exploit any free allotments.

"The spammers will probably just keep changing their mailbox names," Cerf said. "I continue to be impressed by the agility of spammers." And who gets the payments? How do you build and pay for a system to track all this? How do you keep such a system from becoming a target for hacking and scams?

The proposals are also largely U.S.-centric, and even with seamless currency conversion, paying even a token amount would be burdensome for the developing world, said John Patrick, former vice president of Internet technology at IBM Corp.

"We have to think of not only, let's say, the relatively well-off half billion people using e-mail today, but the 5 or 6 billion who aren't using it yet but who soon will be," Patrick said.

Some proposals even allow recipients to set their own rates. A college student might accept e-mail with a one-cent stamp; a busy chief executive might demand a dollar.

"In the regular marketplace, when you have something so fast and efficient that everyone wants it, the price goes up," said Sonia Arrison of the Pacific Research Institute, a think tank that favors market-based approaches.

To think the Internet can shatter class distinctions that exist offline is "living in Fantasyland," Arrison said. Nonetheless, it will be tough to persuade people to pay -- in cash or computing time that delays mail -- for something they are used to getting for free.

Critics of postage see more promise in other approaches, including technology to better verify e-mail senders and lawsuits to drive the big spammers out of business.

"Back in the early '90s, there were e-mail systems that charged you 10 cents a message," said John Levine, an anti-spam advocate. "And they are all dead."

[WSUCougar]

I imagine my brother will go into an apoplectic fit when he sees this. He thinks Bill Gates real name is Beelzebub Gates.

[cuervo72]

Exactly how would they implement this? If a company/institution has their own mail servers, how would anyone regulate any e-mail that stays in their own domain? Or is this set only on incoming messages by the recipient? The whole idea sounds silly to me.

[GrantDawg]

What about those who may email from libraries, too poor to own computers, and need free email for possible job contacts and such? And who and the heck would get this money? This is a ridiculous idea.

[sabotai]

This is kind of old news. I heard this weeks ago. It'll never happen.

[rkmsuf]

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, vesivius, salacious, outrageous!

[Franklinnoble]

The only way to implement this is on the client side. Here's how it could work:

1. Microsoft (or some other software company) creates a new plug-in application that works with every major client e-mail system and web-based e-mail system. The plug-in allows users to set a postage fee for every inbound e-mail message. The default fee is $.01
2. Microsoft (or some other software company - or the US Gov't.) hosts a service online that provides a secure place to buy and process e-postage. The e-post office communicates with your mail client to verify valid postage and accept inbound mail.
3. Users are able to set contact lists of people, companies, and mailing lists that they wish to receive mail from. They can set their client software to accept free mail from these sources. Additionally, if they get a paid message from someone, and they DID want the message, they can order their client software to refund the postage. Basically, you only keep the postage on the mail you don't want. You should only have to buy postage for people you're mailing for the first time, and in most cases, you'll get you're money back.

I think something like this could work, but it would be very difficult to implement.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, vesivius, salacious, outrageous!

Lol. Horrid, ugly, disgusting! Gates isn't the one proposing cash payments for email. Solving a math problem would be pretty funny. Especially given the apparent math capabilities of our population.

[mckerney]

So that anti-spam software Microsoft was promising us isn't working out so well right now?

[cuervo72]

O'Henry? That's one of our top-selling candy bars. It's got chocolate, peanuts, nougat, it's delicious, scrumptious, outstanding!

[SplitPersonality1]

Charge me for e-mail that people may send out inadvertantly because of a security flaw in YOUR software. (e-mail worms anybody?) Oh yeah. That's a good idea.

Billy is gong to turn me into a Mac geek yet.

[dawgfan]

This thread is a great example of human psychology. Many people think Bill Gates is a money-grubbing slimeball, and so have arrived at the conclusion that Gate's idea is to charge e-mail users money send mail as a way of reducing spam. This impression is not helped by the misleading thread title.

However, if you actually read the article, Gate's isn't the one proposing to charge money for e-mail - his (Microsoft's) proposal is to 'charge' users by adding a calculation routine to the process of sending mail that would add a small amount of time (around 10 seconds) per e-mail sent - not a big deal to the average user, but a major inconvenience to bulk e-mailers.

Yet, there seem to be a number of people responding in this thread that think Bill is the one suggesting actual monetary payment be applied to sending e-mail. One respondent misread the article so completely as to think that he'd be charged for receiving spam.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

This thread is a great example of human psychology. Many people think Bill Gates is a money-grubbing slimeball, and so have arrived at the conclusion that Gate's idea is to charge e-mail users money send mail as a way of reducing spam. This impression is not helped by the misleading thread title.

However, if you actually read the article, Gate's isn't the one proposing to charge money for e-mail - his (Microsoft's) proposal is to 'charge' users by adding a calculation routine to the process of sending mail that would add a small amount of time (around 10 seconds) per e-mail sent - not a big deal to the average user, but a major inconvenience to bulk e-mailers.

Yet, there seem to be a number of people responding in this thread that think Bill is the one suggesting actual monetary payment be applied to sending e-mail. One respondent misread the article so completely as to think that he'd be charged for receiving spam.

Whew, I'm safe. I just quote Jackie Chiles...

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

This thread is a great example of human psychology. Many people think Bill Gates is a money-grubbing slimeball, and so have arrived at the conclusion that Gate's idea is to charge e-mail users money send mail as a way of reducing spam. This impression is not helped by the misleading thread title.

However, if you actually read the article, Gate's isn't the one proposing to charge money for e-mail - his (Microsoft's) proposal is to 'charge' users by adding a calculation routine to the process of sending mail that would add a small amount of time (around 10 seconds) per e-mail sent - not a big deal to the average user, but a major inconvenience to bulk e-mailers.

Yet, there seem to be a number of people responding in this thread that think Bill is the one suggesting actual monetary payment be applied to sending e-mail. One respondent misread the article so completely as to think that he'd be charged for receiving spam.

"Gates isn't the one proposing cash payments for email." - Me

[dawgfan]

Dola -

Regarding the issue at hand, this is old news - these ideas were floated a few weeks ago. They're interesting ideas, and I think the idea Gates floated is not a bad one, but to me they don't directly address the biggest issues.

Now granted, I don't know enough code to really understand how e-mail protocol works, but one of the first things that ought to be fixed is to figure out a new protocol that makes 'spoofing' someone's e-mail impossible, and prevents the ability of e-mailers from hiding their origins.

Another thing I'd like to see is ISP's and other mailbox providers set initial limits on how many e-mails can be sent from a newly registered address. Put a reasonable cap that most normal e-mail users wouldn't exceed (100 per day?) but would seriously crimp those spammers that auto-register accounts, send millions of e-mails and then move on to another auto-registered account.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

This thread is a great example of human psychology. Many people think Bill Gates is a money-grubbing slimeball, and so have arrived at the conclusion that Gate's idea is to charge e-mail users money send mail as a way of reducing spam. This impression is not helped by the misleading thread title.

However, if you actually read the article, Gate's isn't the one proposing to charge money for e-mail - his (Microsoft's) proposal is to 'charge' users by adding a calculation routine to the process of sending mail that would add a small amount of time (around 10 seconds) per e-mail sent - not a big deal to the average user, but a major inconvenience to bulk e-mailers.

Yet, there seem to be a number of people responding in this thread that think Bill is the one suggesting actual monetary payment be applied to sending e-mail. One respondent misread the article so completely as to think that he'd be charged for receiving spam.

LOL I realized after I wrote that title that it probably looked like Gates was the one with the cash for email idea. He's still charging a fee for email, it's just time instead of money. I almost think I'd rather spend a penny on every email I sent rather than wasting 5 minutes on puzzles just to send out my emails. I really don't think spam is that big a deal if you know what you're doing. I never give my important email addresses out to any internet signup place. I always have extra accounts for anyone I suspect who might share my email. I also use a simple but brilliant program called mailwasher which allows you to check your email before it reaches the inbox, and send back anything you don't want with a message that makes it look like the server rejected the email because the address wasn't working. It's fantastic, I recommend it for anyone. I've only had one junkmail sender who wasn't fooled by it. You can download it for free (unless they've started charging) here:

http://www.mailwasher.net/

[FBPro]

Idea has been talked about for months if not as far back as last summer, I heard it discussed on Techtv several times and thankfully they didn't think too much of the idea either.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by AgPete

I almost think I'd rather spend a penny on every email I sent rather than wasting 5 minutes on puzzles just to send out my emails.

You don't have to solve a puzzle. Your computer would use extra CPU cycles to solve a puzzle. You just click send and go on doing your work. After 5 or 10 seconds of work, the email would be sent. This would not be a big problem for you. It would be a huge problem for a spammer sending millions of emails though.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

You don't have to solve a puzzle. Your computer would use extra CPU cycles to solve a puzzle. You just click send and go on doing your work. After 5 or 10 seconds of work, the email would be sent. This would not be a big problem for you. It would be a huge problem for a spammer sending millions of emails though.

What would happen then for emails that you want to send to everyone on your list? Would it treat you the same way it does the Viagra ad senders who need to buy more computers? What if I just want to send a picture or something to everyone on my email list, will my computer stall for 10 seconds for each address on an email?

[Alf]

Bill, can I receive more printer cartridge offers ? I haven't received even 10 today.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by AgPete

What would happen then for emails that you want to send to everyone on your list? Would it treat you the same way it does the Viagra ad senders who need to buy more computers? What if I just want to send a picture or something to everyone on my email list, will my computer stall for 10 seconds for each address on an email?

If you wanted to end an email to 10 recipients, you would compose the message and click send. Then, for each recipient, the computer would have to solve something that would take about (say) 5 seconds. That would be a total of 50 seconds before the last one was sent. This would not be noticable to you, however, because it would be a low priority process. In other words, it would only run when nothing else wanted the CPU (like between keystrokes).

[Castlerock]

Right now, you have a process called SYSTEM IDLE PROCCESS which uses nearly all of your CPU cycles. The puzzle-solver would steal cycles from that process.

[GrantDawg]

Actually, several people noticed the money idea was not Gates', but the author of the article was for charging money and that is what they were responding to (at least, what I was).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Actually, several people noticed the money idea was not Gates', but the author of the article was for charging money and that is what they were responding to (at least, what I was).

Right - note that I didn't say everyone was misinterpreting the article, but that many were. And the title of the thread is indeed misleading. However, those that carefully read the article itself would (and did) note that it wasn't Gates who was proposing charging actual money.

[SplitPersonality1]

Well, that's what I get for not reading the article completely and jumping on the bandwagon. Oops. And I for one am often highly critical of people who jump to conclusions and do not fully get all the facts.......Big oops. Serves me right.

[JeeberD]

Someone needs to check Snopes on this one...

[sterlingice]

The one problem I have with this is what happens to legit mailing lists? Heck, take the active message notification here at FOFC. I probably get 50 messages a day from here and when you multiply that by the couple hundred active users, that's 10K emails that the FOFC computer would have to mail out and they're actually legit.

SI

[Taco]

This idea has been talked about for a long time:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20021114.html