Security threats Toolkit
Story: Spam campaigners reject email payment plan
Posted by: AndyH (Tuesday 7 February 2006, 3:05 PM)
I don't quiet get the deal here. A company who wants to legitimately send e-mails to it's readers (ZDnet is an example). has to pay AOL to send to AOL customers and to Yahoo for Yahoo customers, all those who don't use either of these services would be free.
A legit company ( Zdnet) wouldn't or shouldn't use SPAM techniques to send it's e-mails. They would have all the correct from domains, to a proper e-mail address no spam methods needed?
So I ask again? what's the deal here? Just a quick buck on the 'we'll help get rid of spam' bandwagon.
As for me, I get over 4000 of the blighers a month, thank good for a Gmail account that cleans up 99.99% of them.
Full Talkback thread
Story: Spam campaigners reject email payment plan
-
There is one way to tell the Government what it is... Larry J. Linder -
there should be no charge for e mail since this is... hasmukh
-
No, no, no. Email should stay free. This is just... Anonymous
-
Who couldn't see this coming years ago?? AOL,MSN,E... Anonymous
-
Let's all open e-mail accounts with crazy nam... Anonymous -
It sounds as if AOL are selling a license to SPAM.... Anonymous
-
I don't know the specifics of the AOL plan, but I'... JC
-
err. arn't these comments spam samuel_uk
-
Reckon paid for consumer email may well be se... Jon
-
How can they guarantee that the mail wil... David Wright -
Once again we see someone slighting... Andrew Meredith
-
As was quoted before 'At the m... Jon -
If the first one hundred messa... Charles Weber
-
Does anyone really think that... Phoenix
-
I don't quiet get the deal here. A... AndyH -
I do not agree to this proposal as it is not a nec... Chris Goodman
