Did you notice the recent explosive increase of the spamming and "almost spamming" activities on the WWW? I have the nerve to ask you that, don't I?
They tell you, that to quell the spam on the Web level, you have to restrict the mailing activities in the way, that will render email all but useless. Which is hardly an acceptable solution. Is it true? In a way, it is. But its only to say, that it is not entirely a lie.
If you do have to restrict something, you''d rather go all the way from the start, that saves a lot of fool's work and headache. And, whatever you do restrict robustly, would be rendered... say, rather difficult to use afterwards. So, where is the falsehood in the "spam immirtality" legend?
We don't have to restrict every kind of mailing. We do speak mass mailing only here! How may we define it?
- If you do answer more, then, say, 1000 letters in 24 hours - it is mass mailing.
- If you do send more, then, say, 100 letters, that aren't replies to ones, received in the last 7 days, in 24 hours - it is mass mailing.
- If you do send more, then, say, 20 letters with the similiar(alas, some euristic algorithm is highly desirable for a high quality implementation) content in 24 hours - it is mass mailing.
- These restriction should be applied per IP and per account both.
- The additional restrictions to the similar letters from different senders should be developed and implemented.
All the mass mailing accounts have to be managed through the limited number of the licenced service providers. They would add the new customers to your mailing list per their request only(not yours) and delete 'em(and even block from further inclusion) per request(on a short notice) too. What about the really big fellas, like New York Times? Why, they may be granted their own mass mailing licences.
So, if its that simple, why it isn't done yet? It seems, there exist some mighty desire to drive you with all that spam desperate enough, that you'll agree to pay your very privacy for the spamless Web...