As spam approaches 95 percent of all email, what do we do?

Vnunet.com reports that Spamhaus predicts that, at the current rate of increase, 95% of all email traffic will be spam by the middle of 2006.

I believe that blacklists and filters are not enough. Eventually, we'll need to move to use social networks to our advantage to include FOAF in an email solution that filters spam. Most current current filtering systems work on identifying spam and then let everything else through. We need the reverse: a method of authenticating/identifying good email and block everything else. By using our address books and creating a system for connecting public friends lists, we can screen for likely good email based on who we know and who those people know.

FOAF authenticated email will then automatically be loaded into our email inboxes and subfolders. Non-FOAF authenticated email will be filtered based on public blacklists, other public whitelists, and keyword filters to suggest very likely non-SPAM email. What's left--mostly spam--could have automatic email replies sent which allow the original sender to authenticate themselves using captcha. In the event that FOAF authenicated email allowed through spam because a friend of a friend was authenticating a spammer, our addressbooks would also contain blacklists where we could select to ban a friend of a friend as a likely good email referrer.

tags:  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Make senders pay receivers

I think the only solution is to put a cost on e-mail by charging "virtual postage" that is paid by the sender to the receiver. Here's my idea: any outbound e-mail carries with it an attached virtual voucher, valued at say ten cents. The receiver's e-mail client rejects anything that does not carry the postage. For people who correspond regularly, the postage nets to zero since e-mails in either direction will eventually more or less balance. So regular two-way communication is effectively free.

Spammers on the other hand have to pay for the privelege of having you receive their message. I'd happily receive a couple hundred spams a day if I got paid to do so. Only serious unsolicited mailers would pay the price. Junk spammers would just give up. A sophistication of the system would allow individuals to raise or lower the "admission fee" and to grant free access to any specific correspondents.

Godfrey Parkin
http://parkinslot.blogspot.com

cel4145's picture

If money becomes involved,

then governments will become involved and will want to tax email, something that has been avoided so far. I personally would prefer to keep it that way.